CAR_Public/171208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, December 8, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 243



                            Headlines

15 WEST 55 RETAIL: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Sorto" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ADECCO USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District of New York
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
ARAMARK CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over BIPA Violations

ARIZONA: Foster Case System Suit Granted Class-Action Status
ASHCOM LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District Florida
B & H FOTO: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
BANK OF AMERICA: "Rossbacher" Suit Moved to C.D. California
BITHUMB: Users File Class Action Over Server Outage

BLACK KNIGHTS: Bermudez Seeks Unpaid Wage under Labor Code
BLUE RIBBON: "Vagi" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
BROOKLYN WATER: Carter Sues over Cold Sandwiches Sales Tax
C & L TOWING: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CALAMP CORP: "Espeseth" Suit Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

CALIFORNIA: Runners Mull Class Action Over Veterans Day Race
CALPINE CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Rademacher" Suit in E.D. New York
CENTURYLINK INC: "Clayton" Suit Consolidated with MDL 2795
CHARLES P ROGERS: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York

CHEETAH MOBILE: Sued over Earnings Report, Share Price Drop
CODEMETRO INC: Shamiryan Seeks Minimum Pay under Labor Code
COMPUTER SCIENCES: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in ERISA Case
CONTAINER LIFE: Sued Over Barrel Refurbishing Plant Noxious Fumes
CONTINENTAL SERVICES: Faces "Mulvaney" Suit in E.D. New York

COSTA DEL MAR: "Burden" Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas
CRICKET WIRELESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
DAVID WEBB LLC: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. of New York
EVENT MERCHANDISING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Beamon Says
FACEBOOK INC: Austrian Can't File Privacy Suit Against Irish Unit

FLECK & FLECK: Faces "Wilken" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Jan. 30 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over 401(k) Plan
FRED MEYER: Faces "Walker" Suit in Oregon Federal Court
FRENKEL BENEFITS: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York

FULL CIRCLE: Faces "O'Connor" Suit in E.D. New York
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Judicial Employees File Suit Over Back Pay
GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Moved to Central District of California
GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Perez" Suit Eastern Dist. of New York
GEORGIA: Students File Suit Over Groping During Drug Search

GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Dismissal of Taxpayers' Class Action Affirmed
HEALTH LINE: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces "Roberts" Suit in S.D. New York
HIGHER RESPONSE: Faces "Marks" Suit in S.D. New York
HONDA MOTORS: Judge Junks Driver's Consumer Fraud Class Action

IDEAL HEALTH: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
JASON'S PIZZA: Faces "Gutzmer" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chippewa County Joins Opioid Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Crawford County Joins Opioid Class Action
KENDO HOLDINGS: Products Fail to Include FDA Warning, Suit Says

KEY FOOD MARKET: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
KRONOS INC: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
LA MERIDIANA: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
LAMONT & HANLEY: Faces "Rivera" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
LASIK VISION: "Fiallos" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Randolph" Suit in N.D. Texas
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shadow" Suit in S.D. California
MITCHELL GOLD: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
MGM RESORTS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in Central Dist. of California
MOLTENI & C SPA: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces "Cintron" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
MORSE OPERATIONS: "Houser" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
MOTION CITY: "Arambula" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MRO CORPORATION: "Shoyinka" Suit Alleges Double Billing of Cost
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Muhlstock" Suit in E.D. New York

NATUZZI UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
NFL: Debilitated Players Await Settlement Payments
NRA GROUP: Adding Collection Costs Did Not Violate FDCPA
OVASCIENCE INC: Must Face Class Action Over IVF Treatment
PANERA BREAD: Faces "Meyer" Suit in District of Columbia

PEPSI BEVERAGES: "Grice" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Seeks Transfer of Biometrics Class Action
PITZER COLLEGE: "Cekov" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PREFERRED CARE: Assael Sues over Eye Care Benefits
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. California

PROSPER INC: Faces "Cintron" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
RAPID REALTY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. New York
REDZONE COIL: "Lansford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Nappy" Suit in E.D. New York
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Devitt" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York

RINCON ARGENTINO: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Fla.
RITE AIDE: Heller Sues over Cold Sandwiches Sales Taxes
RITEAID PAYROLL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over Merger
SCAVOLINI USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York

STEIN MART: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
RUBY TUESDAY: Maseman Seeks to Enjoin Merger with NRD Capital
SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Action Over Homeless Arrest Pending
SHADE STORE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
SMITH & KING: "Stanko" Suit Moved to District of Nebraska

SMITH HAVEN CHRYSLER: Faces "Ulrich" Suit in E.D. New York
SONY: Lithium Ion Battery Claims Filing Deadline Set
ST LOUIS, MO: Sued Over Workhouse Detainees' Inhumane Conditions
TERMINIX INT'L: Faces "Renteria" Suit in Central District Calif.
TESLA INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action

THOMAS MACKIE: Faces "Price" Suit in Western Dist. of Michigan
TOMY B HAIRCARE: Faces "Chamaidan" Suit in E.D. of New York
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Truffle-Flavored Olive Oil
TRANS CONTINENTAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit in E.D. New York
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Handy" Suit in Eastern District of NY

UNION PACIFIC: King Sues over Railroad Workers' Pay
UNITED COLLECTION: "Korchagina" Suit Filed in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Ruling May Result in Black Farmers' Settlement
UNIVERSAL CITY: Manrique and Lewis Sue over Car Loans
USA MEDICAL: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District of New York

VERIZON NEW JERSEY: Struzynski Sues over Use of Set-Top Box
VERMONT MUTUAL: "Davila" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
VICTIM SERVICES: Fights Check Restitution Program Class Action
VINTNERS DISTRIBUTORS: Yap Seeks OT Wages under California Law
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Raja" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL: Schwanke Sues over Unsolicited Faxes
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Walton" Suit in E.D. New York
WEST CALCASIEU: Double-Billing Class Action Status Upheld
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action Over Life Insurance Policies
XI'AN FAMOUS: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern District of New York

* CFPB's Repealed Arbitration Rule Driven by Trial Lawyers
* Companies Becoming Targets of Data Hacking Class Actions
* Law Professor Calls for Centrist Approach to Arbitration Law
* PSC Chairman to Help Draft Privacy Class Action Legislation
* Trump Funding Linked to Oil Sector Class Action Legal Campaign


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,400 Claims at Sept 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $587MM Liabilities at Sep.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $35MM PCC Liability at Sep. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $148MM Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Sep. 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 600 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had US$1.3-Bil. Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,383 Claims Pending at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $838.3MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $349.0MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $327.0MM Accrual at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Utica & Fireman Motions In Limine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Master Industries Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aurora Pump Wins Summary Judgment in "Walsh"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Summary Judgment in "Walsh"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Simmons" Fails to Exhaust Available Remedies




                            *********


15 WEST 55 RETAIL: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 15 West 55 Retail
LLC. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 15 West 55 Retail
LLC doing business as: The Domenico Vacca d/b/a The Domenico
Vacca, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09317 (S.D. N.Y. November 28,
2017).

Domenico Vacca is an Italian designer and fashion brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Sorto" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control
Systems, Inc. The case is captioned as Evelyn Sorto, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Account Control Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06537 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Account Control offers debt recovery, debt collection, accounts
receivable management and business process outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADECCO USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adecco USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adecco USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09354 (S.D. N.Y., November 29, 2017).

Adecco USA provides workforce solutions in the United States. It
offers contingent staffing and direct hire recruitment services
for large enterprise organizations; workforce solutions and
consulting services, including managed services programs and
recruitment process outsourcing; career transition and leadership
consulting; and specialty staffing, project solutions, and
consulting services.[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


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amcol Systems, Inc.
The case is styled as Susan Thomas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amcol Systems,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-08747 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9,
2017).

Amcol Systems is a debt collection agency located in Columbia,
South Carolina. It was founded in 1984.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ARAMARK CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over BIPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Aramark, one of the country's largest employers, providing food
and other vendor services to Chicago's Soldier Field and numerous
schools, corporate headquarters, hospitals, prisons and other
institutional facilities in Illinois, has become one of the latest
targets among a growing number of lawsuits under an Illinois
privacy law, accusing employers of not properly handling the
process of scanning and managing their employees' fingerprints to
log employees' work hours.

On Nov. 7, attorneys with the firm of Werman Salas P.C., of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Aramark
on behalf of named plaintiff Joseph Cintron, seeking to also
expand the lawsuit to include a class of at least 500 workers, if
not more, who also have worked for Aramark in Illinois since 2014.

The lawsuit alleges Aramark, like many other employers, both large
and small, in recent years required employees to scan their
fingerprints into a company database so the company could track
their hours worked for payroll purposes.  Essentially, the
employees would scan their fingerprints on company punch clock
devices when they would begin a work shift, end a shift, punch out
for meal breaks or otherwise go off the clock.

Employers have increasingly used such systems in recent years,
rather than time cards, swipe cards or keypads into which
employees would enter an identification number, to more
efficiently and accurately log employee work hours, while
decreasing incidences of fraud, such as someone other than the
employee punching the clock to make it appear an absent employee
was working.

Since 2008, however, when Illinois lawmakers enacted the state's
Biometric Information Privacy Act, the state has increased
regulations on businesses that collect and store so-called
biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, retinal scans and
other identifying physical characteristics, for either customers
or employees.

Among other requirements, the law ordered businesses maintaining
such databases to enact policies to receive authorization from
customers or employees before scanning fingerprints, retinas or
other biometric identifiers, and to share with those whose
biometrics are being scanned, information on how those identifiers
would be stored and disposed of.

In their lawsuit against Aramark, the Werman Salas firm alleges
the company failed to secure authorization from employees before
scanning and storing employees' fingerprints, and did not explain
in writing the company's policies for storing and ultimately
disposing of the scanned prints when employees leave the company,
thus allegedly violating the Illinois BIPA law.

According to published reports, Philadelphia-based Aramark brought
in more than $14 billion in revenue in 2016 and employs more than
217,000 workers worldwide.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Cintron worked for Aramark as a
grill cook at Soldier Field from 2013-2015 and then at BMO Harris
Bank's Chicago headquarters for about five months in 2016.

Also on Nov. 7, Mr. Cintron and the Werman Salas firm also filed a
similar class action lawsuit under BIPA against Mr. Cintron's next
employer, the Sweetgreen restaurant chain, alleging that employer
also improperly collected and stored Mr. Cintron's fingerprints,
as well as those of other employees at its four Chicago locations.

The lawsuits ask the court to order the defendants to pay
"liquidated monetary damages . . . for each violation" of BIPA,
plus attorney fees.

Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs are allowed to request damage
awards of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, plus attorney fees.  Thus,
large employers sued under the BIPA law could face many millions
of dollars in potential damages.

The Werman Salas lawsuits mark the firm's third entry in recent
days into the increasingly crowded field of BIPA litigation in
courts in Illinois.

In downstate Tazewell County, on Oct. 30, the firm filed a similar
lawsuit against the Bob Evans restaurant chain on behalf of named
plaintiff Emily Kiefer, who has worked as a server at the chain's
Pekin restaurant since September 2015, according to the complaint.

Since earlier this year, dozens of BIPA lawsuits against employers
have piled up in the state, and particularly in Cook County.

For instance, as the complaints were filed against Aramark and
Sweetgreen, similar class actions were launched by other firms on
behalf of other clients against other employers, including United
Airlines, Hyatt Hotels, Life Time Fitness, Kerry Ingredients and
Flavors, Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, and the Suparossa
Restaurant Group, among others.

Those lawsuits would include potentially tens of thousands of
Illinois workers, and come on the heels of dozens of others
brought against nursing homes, retailers, restaurants, janitorial
service firms and hoteliers, among others.

Law firms bringing other actions include Edelson P.C., McGuire Law
P.C., Stephan Zouras LLP, The Khowaja Law Firm, the Law Office of
James X. Bormes and Caffarelli & Associates, all of Chicago. [GN]


ARIZONA: Foster Case System Suit Granted Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Renick and John Kelly, writing for The Chronicle of
Social Change, report that a lawsuit filed against Arizona's child
welfare and mental health systems was granted class-action status
by a federal judge.

The recent decision by U. S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver is
significant because it ensures that a positive ruling in the suit
will benefit all kids in the state's foster care system.

"By granting our motion for class-action certification, the court
is allowing us to speak for all kids in foster care," said
Harry Frischer, lead counsel for Children's Rights, which is one
of the firms representing the plaintiffs.  "This is important
because it clears the way forward for a remedy for all kids in
care and not just the kids listed in the complaint."

The suit, filed in February of 2015, names the directors of the
Department of Child Safety (DCS), the Department of Health
Services (DHS), and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System (AHCCCS) as defendants.

Included among the state's struggles, according to the complaint,
are a "severe shortage of mental, behavioral and other health
services, failure to conduct investigations of reports that
children in care have been maltreated while in state custody, a
severe shortage of foster homes and failure to engage in basic
practices for maintaining family relationships."

The initial lawsuit claimed that Arizona has violated the
constitutional rights of ten children in foster care.  It also
claims the state failed to provide them with health screening and
treatment guaranteed to them under federal Medicaid law.  All
youth in foster care are eligible for Medicaid, and guaranteed
services under Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit.

EPSDT requires access to health screening for children, including
vision and dental, and reimbursement for any Medicaid-allowable
treatment necessary for problems identified during such a
screening.  Researchers and Medicaid advocates have argued the
benefit is underused and in need of updates.

During the recent effort to repeal or replace the Affordable Care
Act, several reforms to Medicaid were considered that would have
eliminated EPSDT, or made it subject to state choices.

The plaintiffs called for several areas of improvement on the part
of the three agencies, including:

Guarantees that the two agencies will ensure EPSDT services.
An increase in the number of available foster homes for youth who
cannot be placed with relatives.

A stronger and more frequent visitation program for birth parents
in line for reunification, and more caseworker visits with birth
parents.

Judge Silver's ruling means that these claims, and any potential
remedies if the plaintiffs prevail, will apply to all youth in
foster care. Court documents place the class at about 18,000
youth, with 17,000 eligible for Medicaid and 10,000 living in
congregate care or with non-relative foster parents.

Before the recession, in 2007, Arizona had 9,000 youth in foster
care.  The state slashed spending on family services in when it
addressed recession-related budget shortfalls, gutting its child
care subsidies. By 2015, the number of youth in care was over
17,000.

After it was revealed that some 20,000 child abuse or neglect
reports had gone completely uninvestigated or were not
investigated for more than 60 days, state legislators in 2014
removed responsibility for the state's child welfare system from
the Department of Economic Security, and established DCS as an
independent agency.

Three years later, it is unclear whether circumstances have gotten
any better in the state.

"Thirty kids will come into foster care today [in Arizona], and I
worry about the quality of life for those kids," said
Kris Jacober, executive director of the Arizona Friends of Foster
Children Foundation.  "I'm in support of this lawsuit because the
day a kid comes into foster care is the worst day of their life,
and this is the clearest path toward improving these kids' lives."

Both agencies named as defendants in the lawsuit, DCS and DHS,
disputed the notion that the lawsuit's claims should be extended
to include all youth in foster care.  DCS has said publicly that
the agency has already made progress.

Darren DaRonco, a DCS spokesman, told the Arizona Daily Star the
day the class-action certification was issued that the decision
was not indicative of the merits of the lawsuit.  "The Department
looks forward to articulating the policies implemented over the
last three years which have solidified an enduring commitment to
ensuring children in state custody receive the care they need and
deserve," Mr. DeRonco said.

DCS Director Greg McKay told the Arizona Republic that his
agency's plans to improve the system will ensure that foster
children no longer face "substantial risk of serious harm,"
rendering meaningless the grounds for the lawsuit.

According to a report from Open Minds on child welfare spending,
Arizona spent $529,028,207 on child welfare services in 2015,
nearly $150 million more than it spent in 2013.

Messrs. Jacober and Frischer disagreed that the agency had moved
the needle.

"I haven't seen evidence that [children and families] have any
better access to services, better follow-through, or that sibling
visits are easier," said Mr. Jacober.  "It has not been my
observation that things have improved."

"They're still getting general counseling when they need
specialized trauma therapy," Mr. Frischer said.  "There's still
too many kids in group homes, and kids are still being separated
from their siblings when there's no reason to separate them."

Mr. Frischer said the backlog of investigations has been
addressed, but that "doesn't cure the problems we're addressing in
this lawsuit.  Unfortunately for kids in care, the state hasn't
fixed these problems, and kids remain at substantial risk of
harm."

A trial is expected sometime in 2018. Should the judge rule in
favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. Frischer expects that an independent
monitor will be appointed to ensure the state complies with
certain performance criteria, which will be spelled out in the
court order.

DHS and AHCCCS just recently exited a lawsuit regarding the
overall quality of mental health services for people under the age
of 21.  The "J.K. Settlement" was initially reached in 2001; a
federal judge finally closed the case in 2014.

Children's Rights has sued state or county child welfare agencies
in 14 states and the District of Columbia.  In 2015, the federal
judge ruled in its favor against the State of Texas. [GN]


ASHCOM LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashcom LLC. The case
is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ashcom LLC also known
as: Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. doing business as: Ashley
Furniture, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24298-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
November 29, 2017).

Ashcom LLC is an American home furnishings manufacturer and
retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


B & H FOTO: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B & H Foto &
Electronics Corp. The case is titled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf
Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. B & H
Foto & Electronics Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08750
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

B&H Photo Video, founded in 1973 and located at 420 Ninth Avenue
on the corner of West 34th Street in Manhattan, New York City, is
the largest non-chain photo and video equipment store in the
United States.[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
          Telephone: (646) 770 3775
          Facsimile: (212) 254 4202
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Rossbacher" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth Rossbacher, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (improperly named in the Complaint as Bank
of America Corporation, and changed by amendment), Case No. 30-
02017-00949579-CU, was removed on Nov. 14, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:17-cv-02003 to the proceeding.

Bank of America Corporation is a multinational banking and
financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the
United States by assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426 2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623 1673
          E-mail: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com


BITHUMB: Users File Class Action Over Server Outage
---------------------------------------------------
Kai Sedgwick, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that users of
Bithumb, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, have filed a
class action lawsuit following a costly server outage on November
12.  Despite only lasting 90 minutes, the outage cost traders
millions of dollars, occurring at the height of frenzied bitcoin
cash trading.  One customer complained of losing 250 million won
($223,000) in the chaos.

                 A Tale of Lost Won

As bitcoin cash was setting new records on Nov. 12, hitting all-
time highs before plunging sharply, traders at Bithumb, which was
leading the BCH rally, could only watch in frustration after the
trading platform was knocked offline.  Such was the ire of the
affected traders that police were posted outside Bithumb's Seoul
headquarters on Nov. 13 as a precaution.  The Korea Times quotes a
Bithumb official as saying:

   We are discussing measures to compensate the investors. We will
meet our legal and social responsibilities concerning this issue.

That's not enough for some traders though, who are still angered
after missing out on the lucrative profits that could have been
made on the BCH swings.  The exchange, which accounts for around
75% of all South Korean trading volume, has now been hit by a
lawsuit from around 3,000 customers who were affected by the
server outage.

                         Crash and Cash

The basis for the affected traders' legal action stems from the
fact that Bithumb was previously compromised in June, when trading
of Ripple was similarly impacted.  They allege that there are
critical issues with the exchange's servers which still haven't
been fixed, leading to the bitcoin cash debacle.  The impending
legal action raises questions over the obligations of exchanges,
and whether they can be held liable for downtime caused by
unusually high trading volume or external factors.

                 Sour Grapes and Just Desserts

In June, a class action lawsuit was filed in Florida after Kraken
exchange was floored by DDoS attacks, allegedly costing traders up
to $1 million. Often, such suits settle out of court, with
plaintiffs filing a formal complaint to compel the defendant to
pay swift compensation.  The likelihood of Bithumb customers being
eligible for court-awarded compensation is dubious, with one
financial expert opining that the exchange is not liable for such
events.

Most of the trading during the weekend's fierce bitcoin cash rally
originated in South Korea, with the won leading the action. In the
past 24 hours, bitcoin cash volume on Bithumb was $1.16 billion,
with bitcoin a distant second at $445 million. Cryptocurrency
trading is a risky business at the best of times, and the affected
investors have earned little sympathy in other quarters of the
bitcoin community.

Despite Bithumb's server issues, the global cryptocurrency market
set a new record on Nov. 12, hitting $25 billion in volume.  Given
the vast amounts of money at stake, it's safe to assume the
Bithumb lawsuit won't be the last of its kind. [GN]


BLACK KNIGHTS: Bermudez Seeks Unpaid Wage under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO BERMUDEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys,
the Plaintiff, v. BLACK KNIGHTS CLUB, a California corporation;
BLACK KNIGHTS CLUB SERVICE, an unknown business entity; ALL VALLEY
BATTERY SERVICE, INC. dba AMMARI AUTO CENTER, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC683734 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2017), alleges that
the Plaintiff was told that his pay would be $12 per hour. He
worked 6 days per week and at least 12 hours per day. However,
Plaintiff was paid only approximately $2,600 per month, which
worked out to less than minimum wage with no overtime, based on
the number of hours Plaintiff worked. As such, despite the fact
that Plaintiff regularly worked at least 12 hours a day, he was
not properly paid for all these hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          Long Beach, CA
          Telephone: (562) 606 0382
          Facsimile: (866) 915 3589


BLUE RIBBON: "Vagi" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO VAGI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE RIBBON MEATS, INC., c/o BDB Agent
Co., Statutory Agent, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02345-DAP
(N.D. Ohio., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation
for all worked over 40 each workweek under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed hourly non-
exempt meat cutters and meat wrappers. The Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt meat cutter from April 2016
to March 2017. Other similarly-situated employees were employed by
Defendant as non-exempt hourly meat cutters and meat wrappers. The
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not paid for
the following work performed before their scheduled start times
and after their scheduled stop times: donning and doffing beard
guards, hair nets, gloves, jackets, aprons and boots; walking to
their locker rooms; walking from their locker rooms; placing
soiled garments down the laundry shoot; and, putting knives,
scales and other equipment away in their lockers. The Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees were not paid for time
spent donning their personal protective equipment.

After donning their personal protective equipment, Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees walked from the area in which
they changed into their personal protective equipment to their
work area. Such time constitutes "postdonning walk time." The
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not paid for
their postdonning walk time. At the end of their shift, Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees walked from their work
areas to the area in which they changed out of their personal
protective equipment. Such time constitutes "predoffing walk
time." Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not
paid for their predoffing walk time.

The time Plaintiff and other similarly-situated production
employees spent doffing their personal protective equipment was an
integral and indispensable part of their principal activities, was
required by Defendant, OSHA, and the FDA, and was performed for
Defendant's benefit in that it helped keep the work area and
sanitary, and helped promote a more safe and efficient
manufacturing process. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees were not paid for time spent doffing their personal
protective equipment. At the end of their shift, Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees also placed their soiled
garments down the laundry shoot and put their knives, scales and
other equipment away in their lockers. These were also
indispensable and part of their principal activities. Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees were not paid for the time
spent performing these activities.

The Defendant is in the business of processing, distributing and
selling meat and seafood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
          Nilges Draher, LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


BROOKLYN WATER: Carter Sues over Cold Sandwiches Sales Tax
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY CARTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOKLYN WATER BAGEL CO, An Entity of
Unknown Form.; and Does 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC683133
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2017), is a class action brought
against The Original Brooklyn Bagel Co., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, on behalf of the Plaintiff, all those similarly
situated and the California consuming public consisting of the
following: a) all persons or entities in the United States who,
for the four year period prior to the filing of this Complaint,
purchased from a Brooklyn Bagel retail consumer sales store, cold
food products on a to-go basis, and who paid California retail
sales taxes upon the transaction.

Brooklyn Bagel has negligently and/or intentionally sold a wide
variety of cold sandwiches, including but not limited to it number
one selling "Williamsburg" signature sandwich on a to-go basis and
has collected California retail sales taxes upon such sales since
the beginning of the Class Period. The collection and/or retention
of such taxes was and continues to be illegal to the extent that
California statutes and tax regulations do not permit retail sales
establishments to collect taxes from the consuming public for the
sale of such products which ordinarily constitute food for human
consumption, on a to-go basis.

Despite its actual and/or constructive knowledge that the
collection of the California State retail sales taxes on the
above-referenced products has been prohibited under California
law, Brooklyn Bagel has fraudulently and/or negligently continued
to collect taxes to the derogation of the rights of the Plaintiff
and the subject Class. Further, Brooklyn Bagel has collected and
continues to collect, despite notice from Plaintiff's counsel,
retail tax from the consuming public in California as part of the
sale of products which clearly should not be taxed. Due to this
conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have
suffered, or will in the future suffer, extensive economic
damages. Moreover, if Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
had been informed of the fact that they were being subjected to an
illegal taxation upon their purchases, they would not have
purchased said products from Brooklyn Bagel or, at least, not have
purchased the products at the prices paid to the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
          LEGAL GP
          9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 310-980-7749
          E-mail: MHK@LEGALGP.Com


C & L TOWING: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
KEITH E. TAYLOR and TERRENCE MCGLOTHLIN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C & L TOWING
AND TRANSPORT, L.L.C. and CARL CHASE, the Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-01929-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the last three
years as tow truck workers. While employed by Defendants,
Plaintiffs engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce, however Plaintiffs did not travel across state lines or
travel in interstate commerce. Defendant does not register its tow
trucks under the federal Department of Transportation regulations,
but rather registers them only under state law. The Defendants
allegedly failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiffs
regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but
was not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The
Defendants failed to keep accurate time records as required by the
FLSA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are required to provide only a
reasonable approximation of the number of overtime hours worked
for which compensation is owed, which is presumed correct.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, No. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  mbayer@theFLlawfirm.com


CALAMP CORP: "Espeseth" Suit Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
WALFRED L, ESPESETH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALAMP CORP., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC683207
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
under the California Labor Code.

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

CalAmp Corp. provides Internet of Things (IoT) enablement
solutions for various mobile and fixed applications worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Runners Mull Class Action Over Veterans Day Race
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Lehr, writing for Keyt, reports that some former runners of
a cancelled Veterans Day race are thinking about filing a class
action lawsuit.

Kortney Delgadilla said she signed up to run a relay with three
other friends in 2015.

She said they paid $260.00 before they found out the race was
cancelled.

They have tried and failed to get their money back.

When Ms. Delgadilla heard the 2017 race was cancelled she was not
surprised.

She is still looking for an attorney to take the case.

If she hires an attorney she hopes to help runners from both races
get some or all of their money back. [GN]


CALPINE CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Nov. 13 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for The
Southern District of Texas, case no. 4:17-cv-03252, on behalf of
shareholders of Calpine Corporation ("Calpine" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CPN) who held Calpine securities and have been harmed by
Calpine and its board of directors' alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with the merger of the Company to
Energy Capital Partners (the "Proposed Merger").

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Calpine shareholders will
receive $15.25 in cash in exchange for each share of Calpine.  The
complaint alleges that the Proposed Merger is unfair to Calpine
shareholders and that the preliminary proxy statement regarding
the Proposed Merger (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete
and misleading information about the Company's and Energy
Capital's financials and the fairness of the Proposed Merger, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 13, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Monteverde & Associates PC:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. [GN]


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Rademacher" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is captioned as Alison C. Rademacher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-06491 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Central Credit operates as an accounts receivable management
company. It specializes in the collection of primary, auto, and
mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CENTURYLINK INC: "Clayton" Suit Consolidated with MDL 2795
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bunnie Clayton and Jean Clayton,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation; CenturyLink Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., a
Florida Corporation; and CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, , Case No. 1:17-cv-00921, was on transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Nov. 18, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
05046-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

The Williams case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re:
Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017. In its October 5,
2017 Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, a
family of telecommunications companies, have engaged in a range of
deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing
subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers
did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates
quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when
subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted
rates, charging for periods of service before the service was
connected or products received, and failing to process
subscribers' service cancellation requests in a timely manner.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
Judge Michael J. Davis. The lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.

CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy R. Langley, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          229 MAGNOLIA S.
          SPARTANBURG, SC 29306
          Telephone: (864) 585 3873
          Facsimile: (864) 585 6485
          E-mail: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com


CHARLES P ROGERS: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles P. Rogers &
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles P.
Rogers & Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09352 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 29, 2017).

Charles P. Rogers is America's oldest source for beds, including
brass, wood, leather and iron beds, sleigh beds, daybeds, trundle
beds, canopy and platform beds, plus elegant bedding made of
Egyptian cotton & European linen.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Sued over Earnings Report, Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MASTERSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEETAH MOBILE INC., SHENG
FU, YUK KEUNG NG, and VINCENT ZHENYU JIANG, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-08141 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Cheetah Mobile from April 26, 2017 through October 25, 2017,
both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, on October 26, 2017, Prescience Point
Research Group published a report asserting, among other things,
that: (1) approximately 55% of Cheetah Mobile's second quarter
2017 consolidated revenue does not exist; and (2) the Company uses
company-controlled or "fake" accounts on Live.me to gift other
users using company money. On this news, shares of the Company
fell $0.37 per share or over 4% from its previous closing price to
close at $8.05 per share on October 26, 2017, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Cheetah Mobile operates a platform that offers mobile and personal
computer applications for its users and global content promotional
channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CODEMETRO INC: Shamiryan Seeks Minimum Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SHAMIRYAN; individually, and on behalf of all other members
of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, the Plaintiff, v. CODEMETRO, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC683326 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum pay and unpaid overtime under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from
April 2017 to July 2017, in Los Angeles. Defendants hired
Plaintiff and the other class members and aggrieved employees and
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt. Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the other class members and aggrieved
employees for all hours worked, missed, short, late, and/or
interrupted meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had
the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class
members and aggrieved employees, to set work rules and conditions
governing Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment, and
to supervise their daily employment activities. The Defendants
directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the
other class members and aggrieved employees. The Defendants
continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees at its
locations within the State of California. The Plaintiff and the
other class members and aggrieved employees worked over eight
hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment
with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in
a uniform policy of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-
exempt employees within the State of California. This uniform
policy involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours
worked, missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and
rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 818 696 2306
          Facsimile: 818 696 2307

               - and -

          Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROMINA KESHISHYAN
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 744 4124


COMPUTER SCIENCES: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in ERISA Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Moore, writing for Plan Sponsor, reports that the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling in a
case in which two former executives of Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC) alleged a denial of benefits claim under Section
1132(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
because the defendants changed the crediting rate for the Computer
Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key
Executives.

The district court held that under any standard of review, "CSC
correctly interpreted the Plan as permitting the 2012 Amendment,
and CSC's denial of plaintiffs' claims for benefits was therefore
appropriate," and it granted summary judgment to CSC.  The
appellate court affirmed the district court's decision.

As background, the top-hat plan was unfunded, and plan
participants' deferrals accrue in a notational account.  CSC
applies a crediting rate to the notational account balances and
pays retirement benefits from its general assets.

Under terms of the plan, the plan administrator has broad
discretionary authority over the plan and the terms of the plan
may be wholly or partially amended from time to time at the
administrator's discretion.  However, the plan does mandate that
"no amendment shall decrease the amount of any participant's
account as of the effective date of such amendment."

After 2003, the plan's board amended the plan to change the
crediting rate to track the 120-month rolling average yield to
maturity of the Merrill Lynch U.S. Corporates, A Rated, 15+ Years
Index as of December 31 of the prior plan year.  Application of
this crediting rate generally gave plan participants above-market
yields on their deferred income and very low volatility.
Furthermore, the method of calculating this crediting rate
smoothed out market fluctuations and made annual payments
predictable and even.

In May 2012, the Board amended the crediting rate again which
resulted in a more flexible crediting rate linked to a
participant's selection of one (or more) of four valuation funds.
The four valuation funds include a money-market fund, an S&P index
fund, a core bond fund, and a target-date retirement fund. This
system permits participants to choose crediting rates derived from
valuation funds with characteristics that they value, whether that
is low volatility, steady growth, or high earning potential.
Participants can also choose to change their allocation mix daily.
The 2012 amendment took effect on January 1, 2013, and applied
uniformly to all participants.

Discussion of the arguments

The court opinion notes that one of the plaintiffs retired in
March 2012 and one retired in September 2012. Neither plaintiffs'
account decreased in value at the time the 2012 amendment took
place.

On May 20, 2013, the plaintiffs each sent CSC a letter claiming
benefits under the plan before the change in the crediting rate,
but CSC denied their claims on July 22, 2013.  The plaintiffs then
filed a lawsuit.

The plaintiffs challenge three features of the 2012 amendment: the
change to the crediting rate; the introduction of potential for
risk and volatility into the plan; and variations in annual
distributions, which they argue are no longer "approximately
equal."

Regarding the amendment of the crediting rate, the appellate court
found a plain reading of the plan permits the plan's board to
change the crediting rate so long as the change does not decrease
the value of a participant's notational account at the time of
amendment.  The plan also generally requires that administration
be uniform and consistent.  The 2012 amendment did not decrease
the value of any notational account at the time the amendment took
effect and applied uniformly to all participants.

With regard to the introduction of risk and volatility into the
plan, the court said the plaintiffs seek to read into the plan a
guarantee that simply does not exist.  The opinion says the
"Plan's textual requirements -- that there be uniform
administration of participants' accounts and that amendments not
reduce the value of these accounts at the time of amendment --
limited the Board's discretion in meaningful ways.  For example,
CSC could not apply a negative crediting rate, because this would
reduce the value of accounts at the time the amendment took
effect.  Furthermore, the Plan administrator could not exclude
Appellants' accounts from the 2012 Amendment because this might
violate the requirement of uniform administration." But, the court
noted that the text of the plan document does not limit the
board's selection of a crediting rate in the way in which the
plaintiffs argue.  "The relative level of risk or volatility in a
crediting rate merely follows from the crediting rate that the
Board selects, and the Plan places no limit on a crediting rate's
exposure to market-based risk.  Phrased differently, since the
Plan made no promises about the levels of risk or volatility in
the crediting rate, the 2012 Amendment could not render such a
promise illusory," the opinion says.

Finally, the appellate court noted that since the 2012 amendment,
eligible participants' payments are no longer the same from year
to year, but CSC still pays participants in "approximately equal
annual installments."  According to the opinion, because the new
crediting rate introduced the potential for more market volatility
into participants' notational accounts, CSC developed a process of
dividing the amount in a retired participant's notational account
in a given year by the number of years remaining under the plan.
By doing so, CSC achieves "approximately equal" annual payments to
eligible participants.

The court pointed out that in practice, these payments cannot be
strictly equal over time.  "CSC cannot predict the actual
performance of an S&P index fund over a year's time, much less
over a decade, and even if CSC attempted to predict future
performance of a particular valuation fund, it still could not
predict how a participant's allocation decisions across funds
might influence future credited earnings or losses," the opinion
says.  "Participants who select valuation funds with lower but
steadier rates can expect similar annual installment payments,
while participants who select riskier but possibly more rewarding
valuation funds can expect greater variation from year to year."

The court concluded that the new system cannot deliver more than
"approximately equal" annual payments, but this is all that the
plan document requires. [GN]


CONTAINER LIFE: Sued Over Barrel Refurbishing Plant Noxious Fumes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
residents living in St. Francis, Milwaukee County in Wisconsin
have filed a lawsuit against a nearby industrial barrel
refurbishing plant, claiming that the facility is spewing toxic
fumes over their communities.

Locals Michael Tennessen, Deborah Kessel and Robert Kress alleged
that Greif -- the parent company of the plant -- is guilty of
negligence for failing to improve operations following the
recommendations of a safety consultant.

Journal Sentinel reported that the three residents filed a class-
action complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  The attorneys
of the three will seek to have Circuit Judge Stephanie Rothstein
certify the complaint as a class action, which would allow other
individuals who have been affected by the noxious exhausts to
join.

The suit proposes to allow residents with similar complaints
within a one-mile ring around the plant to join the suit. To date,
the suit seeks unspecified damages.

"I am proud of Robert, Debbie and Mike for stepping forward to
take on this big company," said attorney Michael Lueder,
representing one of the claimants.  "These folks just want to be
able to let their kids and grandkids enjoy the yard on a sunny
day.  They want to invite guests for barbecues without
embarrassment.  They want to hang their clothes out on the line
and pull them down smelling fresh, and not like unpleasant
chemicals."

The plant, located in the 3900 block of S. Pennsylvania Ave., is
known locally as Mid-America.  It is one of several other similar
plants that are operated by Container Life Cycle Management, a
joint venture majority owned by Greif.

An investigative report by Journal Sentinel published in
February found that the plant and Container Life Cycle
Management's other facilities in Oak Creek, Milwaukee and three
other states all had workplace safety hazards.  Plant workers said
that chemicals were often mixed together, which caused dangerous
reactions that resulted in both chemical and heat-related burns,
exploding barrels, breathing difficulties, and other health risks.

Following the report, EPA agents later interviewed residents near
the St. Francis plant to get to the bottom of the issue and the
investigators themselves reported experiencing health problems of
their own. [GN]


CONTINENTAL SERVICES: Faces "Mulvaney" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Services
Group, Inc. The case is titled as Kristin Ann Mulvaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Continental Services Group, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06488 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Continental Services provides in vitro human blood components for
diagnostic purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COSTA DEL MAR: "Burden" Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian H. Burden, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Costa Del Mar, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17-68194, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the District of 151st District
Court, Harris County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston) on Nov. 15, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-03504 to the proceeding.

Costa Del Mar manufactures and repairs sunglasses. It also sells
sunglasses; accessories, such as retainers, grippers, keepers,
straps, and cords.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin Ryan Opitz, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 932 6471
          Facsimile: (214) 273 7487
          E-mail: jopitz@mcguirewoods.com


CRICKET WIRELESS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adecco USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cricket
Wireless, Inc. also known as: Cricket Wireless LLC doing business
as: Cricket Communications, Inc. agent of Cricket Wireless,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24299-KMM (S.D. Fla., November 29,
2017).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Pamela Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, P.A.
   333 Las Olas, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: pchavez@advocacypa.com

      - and -

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


DAVID WEBB LLC: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Webb LLC. The
case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. David Webb LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09347-RA (S.D. N.Y., November 29,
2017).

David Webb LLC develops, manufactures, and markets jewelry.[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


EVENT MERCHANDISING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Beamon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLESHETTE BEAMON, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EVENT MERCHANDISING, INC., a
California corporation; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; LIVE NATION MARKETING, INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION MERCHANDISE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION MTOURS (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION MUSIC GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION TOURING (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION UTOURS (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation; LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC683325 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action for relief from Defendants'
uniform and intentional violations of the California Labor Code,
including but not limited to the following: unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
inaccurate and incomplete, itemized wage statements, and for
failure to timely pay all wages due and owing upon separation.
Separately and independently actionable, to the extent that
Defendant disavows employment or joint employment of Defendant's
EMI's employees, the Defendant is liable for all unpaid wages.
Class members were not paid as employees in accordance to
California law. As a consequence, Defendants unlawfully denied
these individuals minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal and
rest breaks, and other payments and rights guaranteed by
California law.

The Defendants promote and market merchandise at professional
sports, music, and other events. Plaintiff and the proposed Class
Members worked for Defendants as seasonal salespersons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Bruce E. Levinson, Esq.
          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Drive, Ste. 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496 5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510 6429
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  bruce@crosnerlegal.com
                  alfredo@crosnerlegal.com


FACEBOOK INC: Austrian Can't File Privacy Suit Against Irish Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert-Jan Bartunek and Shadia Nasralla, writing for Reuters,
report that an Austrian law student cannot bring a class action
suit against Facebook's Irish unit over alleged privacy violations
in an Austrian court, an EU court adviser said on
Nov. 14, but can sue the company in his home country on his own
behalf.

Arguing Facebook violated privacy rules, Max Schrems is claiming
500 euros ($576) in damages for each of some 25,000 signatories to
his lawsuit, one of a series of European challenges to U.S.
technology firms and their handling of personal data.

"A consumer who is entitled to sue his foreign contact partner in
his own place of domicile, cannot invoke, at the same time as his
own claims, claims on the same subject assigned by other
consumers," the EU top court's Advocate General Michal Bobek said.

The advocate general, whose opinions are not binding but usually
followed by the court, said allowing a class action suit in this
case would lead consumers to choose the place of the most
favorable court.

Privacy activist Schrems, who had argued that individual lawsuits
on user privacy would be "impossible" due to the financial burden
on users, said a ruling in line with the advocate general's
opinion would still allow him to set a precedent.

"In the advocate general's view, I can at least bring a 'model
case' at my home jurisdiction in Vienna, which may enable us to
debate the illegal practices of Facebook in an open court for the
first time," Mr. Schrems said in a statement.

Facebook said the advocate general's opinion supported the
decision of two courts that Schrem's claims could not proceed as a
class action.

While common in the United States, class action suits are rarely
recognized in Europe.

"It is not for the Court to create such collective redress in
consumer matters, but eventually for the Union legislator," the
Advocate General said. [GN]


FLECK & FLECK: Faces "Wilken" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleck, Fleck &
Fleck. The case is captioned as Kenneth Wilken, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Fleck, Fleck & Fleck, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06489
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Fleck, Fleck & Fleck, is a firm serving Garden City in commercial
collections, consumer debt collections and estate planning wills
and trusts cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Jan. 30 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ForceField Energy Inc. (FNRG) on Nov. 13 disclosed that it has
received preliminary approval from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York of a settlement
agreement in the stockholder derivative action entitled: In Re
ForceField Energy, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-15-
CV-2782-ARR-VVP.   According to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the Court's Order, the Company is required to
publish the following notice:

TO:     ALL OWNERS OF FORCEFIELD ENERGY, INC. ("FORCEFIELD")
COMMON STOCK (TICKER SYMBOL: FNRG) AS OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2017, WHO
CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.  YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED.  THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND
CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.  YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION,
STOCKHOLDERS OF FORCEFIELD WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING
THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE
SETTLED CLAIMS.

THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS RESPECTING THE
MERITS OF THE ACTION.  THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT.  IT IS BASED ON
REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.1 and an Order from the Honorable Allyne R. Ross of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the
"Court"), that a proposed settlement agreement has been reached
among Plaintiffs,1 derivatively on behalf of ForceField Energy,
Inc. ("ForceField" or the "Company"), the Individual Settling
Defendants, and ForceField in connection with the above-captioned
consolidated stockholder derivative action titled IN RE FORCEFIELD
ENERGY, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-2782-ARR-VVP
(the "Action").

Plaintiffs filed the Action derivatively on behalf of ForceField
to remedy the alleged harm caused to the Company by the Individual
Defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties and other
alleged misconduct.  The proposed Settlement, if approved by the
Court, would fully, finally and forever resolve the Action on the
terms set forth in the Stipulation and summarized in this Notice,
including the dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

As explained below, a Settlement Hearing shall be held before the
Court on January 30, 2018 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Allyne R. Ross, at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Courtroom 8C S, 225 Cadman Plaza East,
Brooklyn, New York 11201, to determine whether, inter alia, the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should
be finally approved by the Court and whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Fee Award, including Service Awards to the Plaintiffs, should be
finally approved.  You have the right to object to the Settlement
and the Fee Award in the manner provided herein.  If you fail to
object in the manner provided herein at least fourteen (14) days
prior to the Settlement Hearing, you will be deemed to have waived
your objections and will be forever bound by the Judgment to be
entered and the releases to be given, unless otherwise ordered by
the Court.

This Notice is not intended to be and should not be construed as
an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the
merits of the claims made in the Action, but is merely to advise
one of the proposed Settlement and of one's rights if he, she or
it owned ForceField stock as of September 26, 2017 and continues
to hold ForceField stock through the date of the Settlement
Hearing ("Current ForceField Stockholder").

BACKGROUND

Factual Background of the Action

ForceField is a Nevada corporation that purports to have its
principal executive offices located in New York, New York and to
be a designer, distributor and licensee of alternative energy
products and solutions.  Plaintiffs allege in the Action that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: (1)
engaging in a scheme to manipulate the price and trading volume of
ForceField's stock by using undisclosed nominee accounts to
purchase and sell the stock and by using stock promoters and
broker dealers who failed to disclose to potential investors that
they had been paid by the Individual Defendants to promote the
purchase of the stock and whose reports were reviewed by
ForceField's management before publication; (2) by failing to
maintain for the Company adequate internal and financial controls;
and (3) by making false and misleading statements by failing to
disclose to the investing public (a) the above scheme, (b) that
certain members of ForceField's management have troubling
histories with fraudulent companies, and (c) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

Procedural Background

On May 13, 2015, plaintiff Brown, derivatively on behalf of
ForceField, filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in
this Court, initiating the action captioned Brown v. St-Julien et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02782 (the "Brown Action").

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff Su, derivatively on behalf of
ForceField, filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
initiating the action captioned Su v. St-Julien, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-04174 (the "Initial Su Action").

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiff in the related securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York captioned IN RE FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-3020 (the "Securities Class Action"),
filed a motion requesting the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") to transfer and
coordinate or consolidate for pretrial proceedings related
actions, including the Initial Su Action and the Brown Action, in
the Eastern District of New York (the "Transfer Motion").

On July 10, 2015, plaintiff Su, derivatively on behalf of
ForceField, re-filed his verified shareholder derivative complaint
in this Court, initiating the action captioned Su v. St-Julien, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04080 (the "Su Action").

On July 13, 2015, plaintiff Su voluntarily dismissed the Initial
Su Action without prejudice.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiff Su filed a brief in response to the
Transfer Motion.

On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Brown filed a brief in response to the
Transfer Motion.

On July 20, 2015, Defendants filed their opposition to the
Transfer Motion.

On August 19, 2015, plaintiffs Su and Brown filed an unopposed
motion to consolidate the Su Action and the Brown Action into the
Action and appoint The Brown Law Firm, P.C. and Harwood Feffer LLP
as co-lead counsel in the Action (the "Motion to Consolidate").

On October 13, 2015, the MDL Panel issued an order denying the
Transfer Motion.

The Court so ordered the Motion to Consolidate on January 12,
2016.

On March 16, 2016, the Settling Parties filed a stipulation to
stay proceedings, staying the Action pending the resolution of
motions to dismiss filed in the Securities Class Action.  The
Court so ordered the stipulation to stay on April 27, 2016.

On March 29, 2017, the motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint made by the Company and defendants Natan and Williams in
the Securities Class Action was granted, in part, and denied in
part.

Settlement Negotiations

Plaintiffs' Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and counsel for the lead
plaintiff in the Securities Class Action, formally commenced
settlement negotiations in an in-person meeting at the office of
Defendants' Counsel on April 25, 2017.  After engaging in further
extensive negotiations that included numerous email exchanges and
telephonic conferences, the Settling Parties reaching an agreement
in principle to resolve the Action.  The Settling Parties agree
that the resolution of the Action was a material factor in the
settlement of the Securities Class Action.  Specifically, the
resolution of the Action was a material factor in the Company's
insurers' decision in consideration for settling the Securities
Class Action to pay the sum of three hundred and fifty-six
thousand dollars ($356,000.00) for the benefit of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period from August 20, 2013 through and including April
20, 2015, and were damaged thereby, excluding certain persons.
The Settling Parties vigorously negotiated, at arm's-length, the
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to be paid to
Plaintiffs' Counsel (the "Fee Award"), in light of the substantial
benefits that will be conferred upon the Company as a result of
the settlement of the Action.  The Settling Parties agreed to the
Fee Award in the amount of forty-four thousand dollars
($44,000.00), subject to approval by the Court.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIMS, AND THE BENEFIT OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs' Counsel conducted investigations relating to the
claims and the underlying events alleged in Action, including, but
not limited to: (1) reviewing and analyzing the Company's public
filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), press releases, announcements, transcripts of investor
conference calls, and news articles; (2) reviewing and analyzing
the allegations contained in the Securities Class Action; (3)
researching and drafting shareholder derivative complaints; (4)
researching and drafting briefs in response to the Transfer
Motion; (5) researching the applicable law with respect to the
claims in the Action and the potential defenses thereto; and (6)
engaging in extensive settlement discussions with Defendants'
Counsel.

Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the Action
have merit and that their investigation supports the claims
asserted.  Without conceding the merit of any of Defendants'
defenses or the lack of merit of any of their own allegations, and
in light of the benefits of the Settlement as well as to avoid the
potentially protracted time, expense, and uncertainty associated
with continued litigation, including potential trials and appeals,
Plaintiffs have concluded that it is desirable that the Action be
fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation.  Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' Counsel recognize the significant risk, expense, and
length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Action
against the Individual Settling Defendants through trials and
possible appeals.  Plaintiffs' Counsel also have taken into
account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation,
especially complex litigation such as the Action, as well as the
difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation.  Based on
their evaluation, and in light of the significant benefits
conferred upon the Company and its shareholders as a result of the
Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined
that the Settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiffs,
ForceField, and Current ForceField Stockholders, and have agreed
to settle the Action upon the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth herein.

DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY

The Individual Settling Defendants have denied, and continue to
deny, each and every claim and contention alleged by Plaintiffs in
the Action and affirm that they have acted properly, lawfully, and
in full accord with their fiduciary duties, at all times.
Further, the Individual Settling Defendants have denied expressly,
and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability, or damage against them arising out of any of the
conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have
been alleged, in the Action and deny that they have ever committed
or attempted to commit any violations of law, any breach of
fiduciary duty owed to ForceField or its shareholders, or any
wrongdoing whatsoever.  Had the terms of the Stipulation not been
reached, the Individual Settling Defendants would have continued
to contest vigorously Plaintiffs' allegations, and the Individual
Settling Defendants maintain that they had and have meritorious
defenses to all claims alleged in the Action.  Without admitting
the validity of any of the claims that Plaintiffs have asserted in
the Action, or any liability with respect thereto, Defendants have
concluded that it is desirable that the claims be settled on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.  Defendants
are entering into this Settlement because it will eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, disruption, burden, and expense of
further litigation of the Action, and because Defendants have
determined that the Settlement confers substantial benefits upon
ForceField and Current ForceField Stockholders.

Neither the Stipulation, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor
any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in
furtherance of the Settlement: (a) is, may be construed as, or may
be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the truth or validity
of any of the Released Claims, of any claims or allegations made
in the Action, or of any purported acts or omissions by the
Defendants; (b) is, may be construed as, or may be used as an
admission of, or evidence of, any fault, omission, negligence, or
wrongdoing by the Defendants, or any concession of liability
whatsoever; or (c) is, may be construed as, or may be used as an
admission of, or evidence of, a concession by any Defendant of any
infirmity in the defenses that Defendants asserted or could have
asserted in this Action or otherwise.

THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Allyne R.
Ross on January 30, 2017 at  11:00  a.m. in Courtroom 8C S of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201 to determine: (i)
whether the proposed Settlement, upon the terms set forth in the
Stipulation, should be finally approved in all respects as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Judgment approving the
Settlement, substantially in the form of Exhibit C attached to the
Stipulation, should be entered, dismissing the Action with
prejudice and releasing and enjoining the prosecution of any and
all Released Claims; and (iii) whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee
Award, including any Service Awards, should be finally approved.
At the Settlement Hearing, the Court may hear or consider such
other matters as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.
The Court may adjourn the date of the Settlement Hearing without
further notice to Current ForceField Stockholders, and the
Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court at the Settlement
Hearing, or at any adjourned session thereof, without further
notice.

THE SETTLEMENT

The Settling Parties agree that the resolution of the Action was a
material factor in the settlement of the Securities Class Action.
Specifically, the resolution of the Action was a material factor
in the Company's insurers' decision in consideration for settling
the Securities Class Action to pay the sum of $356,000 for the
benefit of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of the Company during the period from August 20, 2013
through and including April 20, 2015, and were damaged thereby,
excluding certain persons.

DISMISSAL AND RELEASES

In connection with the Court's approval of the Settlement, the
Settling Parties will jointly request entry of the Judgment by the
Court, dismissing with prejudice all claims that Plaintiffs have
alleged in the Action and any other Released Claims.

Upon the Effective Date, ForceField, Plaintiffs, derivatively on
behalf of ForceField, and each of ForceField's stockholders shall
be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have,
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged
the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) against the
Released Persons and any and all derivative claims arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with, the defense, settlement or
resolution of the Action against the Released Persons.
ForceField, Plaintiffs, and each of ForceField's stockholders
shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall
have, covenanted not to sue any Released Person with respect to
any Released Claims, and shall be permanently barred and enjoined
from instituting, commencing or prosecuting the Released Claims
against the Released Persons except to enforce the releases and
other terms and conditions contained in the Stipulation and/or the
Judgment entered pursuant thereto.

Upon the Effective Date, each of the Released Persons shall be
deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have,
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged
each and all of Plaintiffs, their beneficiaries, and Plaintiffs'
Counsel from any and all Defendants' Released Claims.

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

In recognition of the substantial benefits provided to ForceField
and Current ForceField Stockholders as a result of the settlement
of the Action, ForceField has agreed to cause its insurers to pay
to Plaintiffs' Counsel an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in
the total amount of forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000.00) (the
"Fee Award"), subject to approval by the Court. The Fee Award is
the product of vigorous, arm's-length negotiations between the
Settling Parties.  The Settling Parties agree that the Fee Award
is fair and reasonable in light of the substantial benefits
conferred upon ForceField and Current ForceField Stockholders by
the Settlement. In light of the substantial benefits they have
helped to create for all Current ForceField Stockholders, the
Plaintiffs may apply for Court-approved service awards in the
amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) each (the "Service
Awards").  Each Service Award, to the extent that it is applied
for and approved in whole or part, shall be funded from the
portion of the Fee Award distributed to that Plaintiff's counsel.

THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

Any Current ForceField Stockholder may object and/or appear and
show cause, if he, she, or it has any concern, why the Settlement
should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, why
Judgment should not be entered thereon, or why the Fee Award,
including any Service Awards, should not be finally approved;
provided, however, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, that no
Current ForceField Stockholder shall be heard or entitled to
contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered approving
the Settlement, or the Fee Award, unless that Stockholder has, at
least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing: (1)
filed with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the
Settlement setting forth: (a) the nature of the objection; (b)
proof of ownership of ForceField common stock on September 26,
2017 and through the date of the Settlement Hearing, including the
number of shares of ForceField common stock held and the date of
purchase; (c) any and all documentation or evidence in support of
such objection; and (d) the identities of any cases, by name,
court, and docket number, in which the stockholder or his, her, or
its attorney has objected to a settlement in the last three years;
and (2) if a Current ForceField Stockholder intends to appear and
requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such stockholder
must have, in addition to the requirements of (1) above, filed
with the Clerk of the Court: (a) a written notice of such
stockholder's intention to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (b) a
statement that indicates the basis for such appearance; (c) the
identities of any witnesses the stockholder intends to call at the
Settlement Hearing and a statement as to the subjects of their
testimony; and (d) any and all evidence that would be presented at
the Settlement Hearing.  If a Current ForceField Stockholder files
a written objection and/or written notice of intent to appear,
such stockholder must also simultaneously serve copies of such
notice, proof, statement, and documentation, together with copies
of any other papers or briefs such stockholder files with the
Court (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon each
of the following:

Timothy W. Brown
Martin H. Kaplan
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC
240 Townsend Square
120 Wall Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
New York, NY 10005
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Defendants

Robert I. Harwood
HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Any Current ForceField Stockholder who does not make his, her, or
its objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to
have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from
making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy
of the Settlement and the Fee Award, including any Service Awards,
as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by the
Court, but shall be forever bound by the Judgment to be entered,
the dismissal of the Action with prejudice, and any and all of the
releases set forth in the Stipulation.

CONDITIONS FOR SETTLEMENT

The Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain
events described in the Stipulation, which requires, among other
things: (1) entry of the requested Judgment by the Court; (2) the
payment of the Fee Award; and (3) the Judgment has become Final.
If, for any reason, any one of the conditions described in the
Stipulation is not met and/or the entry of the Judgment does not
occur, the Stipulation might be terminated and, if terminated,
will become null and void; and the Settling Parties to the
Stipulation will be restored to their respective positions as of
the date immediately preceding the date of the Stipulation.

EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES

This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the
Settlement.  For a more detailed statement of the matters involved
in the Action, reference is made to the Stipulation, which may be
inspected at the Clerk of the Court's Office, U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East,
Brooklyn, New York 11201, during business hours of each business
day or by visiting the investor relations portion of ForceField's
website at www.forcefieldenergy.com

Any other inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action should
be addressed in writing to Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the
Action: Timothy W. Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 240 Townsend
Square, Oyster Bay, NY 11771, Telephone: (516) 922-5427,
Facsimile: (516) 344-6204; or Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Telephone: (212) 935-
7400, Facsimile: (212) 753-3630.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

1 For purposes of this Notice, the Court incorporates by reference
the definitions in the Settling Parties' Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, fully executed as of September 26, 2017 (the
"Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms used herein, unless
otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set
forth in the Stipulation.  A copy of the Stipulation may be
inspected at the Clerk of the Court's Office for the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman
Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or by visiting the investor
relations portion of ForceField's website at
www.forcefieldenergy.com [GN]


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over 401(k) Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plan Adviser, reports that the latest
self-dealing lawsuit filed against a financial services provider
by its own in-house retirement plan participants challenges the
offering of proprietary products within the plan.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, seeking class action
certification on behalf of all similarly situated participants in
the Franklin Templeton 401(k) retirement plan.  Named as
defendants are both the Franklin Resources Inc. company and the
retirement plan's fiduciary investment committee -- the members of
which are called out by name.

The suit alleges that defendants "breached their fiduciary duties
by causing the plan to invest in funds offered and managed by
Franklin Templeton (Franklin funds), when better-performing and
lower-cost funds were available."  The lead plaintiff further
alleges that defendants were "motivated to cause the plan to
invest in Franklin funds to benefit Franklin Templeton's
investment management business."  Further, the suit alleges that
defendants "offered the plan inferior arrangements compared to
that offered to non-captive plans, and, in so doing, engaged in
prohibited transactions."

Much of the text of the complaint looks familiar, as it mirrors
similar suits filed in the last year against investment product
providers.  According to plaintiffs, the plan has some $750
million invested in mutual funds managed by Franklin Templeton and
its subsidiaries.  While use of proprietary products is a common
practice among providers of mutual funds, plaintiffs argue in this
case it is a violation of the fiduciary duty because "these
investment options were chosen because they were managed by, paid
fees to, and generated profits for Franklin Templeton and its
subsidiaries."

The complaint continues: "Over the relevant time period, over 40
mutual funds offered by the plan were, and continue to be, managed
by Franklin Templeton or its subsidiaries.  The plan also includes
a company stock fund, which invests in common stock of Franklin
Templeton, and a collective trust, managed by State Street Global
Advisors, which is intended to track domestic large-capitalization
stocks as represented in the S&P 500 Index. In 2015, the plan also
added three other collective trusts, also managed by State Street
Global Advisors, to offer index tracking for international stocks,
domestic small and mid-capitalization stocks, and bonds."

Plaintiffs suggest that, prior to 2015, the S&P 500 Index fund was
the only passively managed, and only non-proprietary, option in
the plan.  The crux of the complaint is that, "at all times
relevant herein, the proprietary funds charged and continue to
charge plan participants and beneficiaries fees that were and are
unreasonable for this plan.  The fees charged were and are
significantly higher than the median fees for comparable mutual
funds in 401(k) plans as reported by the Investment Company
Institute, in The Economics of Providing 401(k) Plans: Services,
Fees and Expenses and by BrightScope, Inc., an independent
provider of 401(k) ratings and data, based on its review of 1,667
large 401(k) plans reported in Real Facts about Target Date
Funds."

The lawsuit also challenges certain revenue sharing practices
engaged in by Franklin Templeton fiduciaries.  According to
plaintiffs, during the class period, because Franklin offered the
plan lower shareholder service fees, the plan "both had to pay
additional administrative fees to the plan's recordkeeper and lost
the opportunity to benefit from the reimbursement of fees to the
plan for other purposes.  At the same time, for other shareholders
of the same Advisor share class of the proprietary funds, Franklin
offers a 15 basis point beneficial owner servicing credit, which
was also paid by Franklin Templeton Investors Services, LLC using
fees collected from the Franklin mutual funds and reducing the
value of the mutual funds for all shareholders, including the
plan.  The 15 basis point beneficial owner servicing credit was
offered to Franklin-fund shareholders such as the Mercury General
Corporation Profit Sharing Plan, but was not available to the [in-
house] plan."

The lawsuit continues: "Upon information and belief, other
shareholders in the Advisor share class benefitted from the
additional 15 basis points through payments to their advisers,
including Franklin Templeton Institutional, LLC, the funds'
distributor, Franklin Templeton Distributors, Inc., or entities
who had entered into selling agreements with Franklin Templeton
Distributors, Inc."

According to plaintiffs, had Franklin made this 15 basis points
fee reduction available for the benefit of the in-house plan, as
it did with other shareholders, the plan and Charles Schwab would
have received beneficial owners servicing credits of approximately
$1.1 million per year, an increase of $700,000 per year from the
benefit offered by Franklin for its own plan.

"Conversely, had Franklin offered all shareholders the same
arrangement as it had with Charles Schwab for the plan, the amount
of the payments made from each fund would have been less, causing
the value of the plan's investments in the Franklin Funds to be
higher," plaintiffs argue.

Taking all the charges together, plaintiffs summarize what they
see as the defendants' motivation for taking the actions at issue
here: "With an operating margin of over 37%, very high for the
mutual fund industry, defendants made a fortune off of the plan's
investments in proprietary funds."

Among various other points of content, the suit also calls out
Franklin Templeton's treatment of the plan's qualified default
investment alternative, suggesting the decision in 2014 to use
newly created proprietary target-date funds was also made with the
company's, and not participant's, best interest in mind.
Plaintiffs also suggest the offering of a money market fund rather
than a stable value fund has robbed participants of easily
available returns.

In a statement to PLANADVISER, Franklin Templeton strongly denies
the allegations: "This lawsuit, filed by the same law firm that
filed the pending Cryer action against the company, names
additional defendants and includes additional claims, but is
premised on the same alleged set of facts and seeks duplicative
relief.  This second lawsuit follows the unsuccessful attempt by
the plaintiff in Cryer to add these same additional claims and
defendants. Franklin Templeton takes pride in its 401(k) plan,
which offers a generous matching program and provides employees
with a diversified line-up of investment choices, including
proprietary and non-proprietary funds, and will defend against
both lawsuits aggressively." [GN]


FRED MEYER: Faces "Walker" Suit in Oregon Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Meyer Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Walker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fred Meyer Inc., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01791-YY (D.
Oreg., Nov. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Youlee Yim You.

Fred Meyer is a chain of superstores founded in 1922 in Portland,
Oregon, by Fred G. Meyer. The company was one of the pioneers of
one-stop shopping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal Weingart, Esq.
          NEAL WEINGART ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          1001 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1415
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 379 9933
          E-mail: neal@nealweingartlaw.com


FRENKEL BENEFITS: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frenkel Benefits,
LLC. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, And On Behalf Of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frenkel
Benefits, LLC, the Defendant, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-08784 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 11, 2017).

Frenkel Benefits is an employee benefits broker and consultant
that goes beyond the traditional role to deliver a single-source
solution for sustainable cost.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF N. M. GEHI, P.C.,
          118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 5999
          Facsimile: (718) 263 1685
          E-mail: nmgehi@gmail.com


FULL CIRCLE: Faces "O'Connor" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Circle
Financial Services, LLC. The case is titled as Gary O'Connor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Full Circle Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06530 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

The Full Circle is a debt collection/receivables management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Judicial Employees File Suit Over Back Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Kass, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that Fulton County government is facing another lawsuit
related to how much it pays employees, two years after officials
agreed to pay more than $20 million to workers who were
shortchanged on their paychecks.

In the latest suit, employees of five Fulton County courts claim
that they were unfairly kept out of the county's new pay and
classification system when it debuted in 2015.  There are about
300 judicial workers who would be affected by the lawsuit, and
payments could exceed $4 million.

The class action calls for Superior, State, Probate, Magistrate
and Juvenile court employees to be moved to the new pay scale,
which was approved after intentional pay disparities cost the
county millions of dollars.

In the suit, filed on Nov. 10 in Fulton County Superior Court,
attorney Lee Parks said judicial department workers were initially
given new salary ranges under the plan.  But after a political
dispute between county leaders and some court employees, the suit
said, those judicial workers were not moved to the new, higher pay
scales.

A Fulton County spokesperson said the county did not comment on
pending litigation.  But earlier this year, in a dispute about
whether judicial employees should receive a living wage increase
that other employees were getting, Fulton County Commissioner Bob
Ellis said the court had opted out of the county's payroll system.

"I'm empathetic to employees, but it was the court's decision not
to participate," said Mr. Ellis, who is now vice chairman of the
Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

The suit also cites the living wage increase e, saying that
judicial workers should have been included.  There are about 70
employees who make less than $31,000 a year in the courts, and
would have been eligible for living-wage increases.

Parks said county rules only allow for one pay and classification
system for employees.  By keeping judicial workers on the old
system, and moving other county employees to a new one, the county
is violating its own requirements, he said.

Parks said, employees are not getting equal pay for equal work. He
estimated that Fulton would owe workers about $2 million a year in
back pay since the new system was implemented at the end of 2015,
plus interest, until judicial workers were put on the same system.

"They're treating civil servants differently," he said. "You
can't."

In 2015, just before the new pay scales were implemented, Fulton
leaders agreed pay $18 million to settle eight lawsuits claiming
civil service rules were violated.  In addition to back pay, the
county paid attorneys fees and pension payments for workers who
had already retired. The total cost was about $21 million, and
Parks' firm won that settlement.

In 2003, Information Technology employees won $400,000 from the
county in arbitration after similar complaints.  IT workers
received $450,000 in another settlement last year, in a suit
related to overtime pay. And in 2014, the county paid $4.6 million
to judicial law clerks after they won a lawsuit about their own
pay.

Because the new pay system is in place for non-judicial workers,
Parks said he didn't anticipate any more disagreements about pay,
once this one had been settled. Going forward, he said, would be
"smooth sailing" for the county.

"You can't not include them," he said of the judicial workers. "As
the county is excused from many services, the courts and the jail
system are the biggest thing they do.  The justice system is the
biggest piece of Fulton County now." [GN]


GARDA CL: "Lane" Suit Moved to Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ali Lane, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Garda CL West,
Inc., a California corporation; Garda CL Technical Services, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation; Garda Supplies, Rental & Services Ltd., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC678484, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 9, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-08200 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Perez" Suit Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co.
International, Inc. The case is entitled as Eleanor L. Perez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06517 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Gatestone operates as an employment agency. The Company
specializes in accounts receivable management and business process
outsourcing solutions, as well as provides training programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GEORGIA: Students File Suit Over Groping During Drug Search
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Stelloh, writing for NBC News, reports that a Georgia sheriff
whose deputies allegedly groped students during a school-wide drug
search in April was suspended on Nov. 13 in an executive order
signed by Gov. Nathan Deal.

The order, which took effect immediately, says that Worth County
Sheriff Jeff Hobby's administration would be adversely impacted by
an indictment issued charging Hobby in the incident.

Hobby faces charges of violation of oath by a public officer, two
counts of false imprisonment and one count of sexual battery,
according to NBC affiliate WALB.

His lawyer, Raleigh Rollins, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The indictment was handed down after the filing of a federal
lawsuit alleging that roughly 900 students at Worth County High
School were subjected to a humiliating and warrantless search on
April 14.

After a series of burglaries, the deputies were targeting 13
students that day, the suit says, but only three came to school.

According to the suit, which was filed by the Southern Center for
Human Rights in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, deputies placed the school on lock down for roughly four
hours and ordered students to stand spread eagle in the gym.

The deputies then "touched and manipulated students' breasts and
genitals" and "inserted fingers inside girls' bras," the suit
alleges, adding that the searches revealed the students' body
parts.

The students felt "fear, embarrassment, stress and humiliation,"
according to the suit, which is seeking class-action status and a
jury trial to decide damages. [GN]


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Dismissal of Taxpayers' Class Action Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Montana
Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's ruling throwing out a
potential class action suit of individuals who paid property taxes
"under protest" because of alleged government deficiencies.

The Supreme Court concluded Oct. 25 that the District Court of the
First Judicial District was correct in determining that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.  In coming to that conclusion,
the majority opinion of the Supreme Court stated, "Taxpayers have
not adequately alleged a concrete, threatened injury, and
therefore have not established standing. Without an independent
ground for standing, they cannot assert a claim under the
Declaratory Judgments Act . . . Neither the private attorney
general doctrine nor the Declaratory Judgments Act grants
taxpayers standing to seek relief in this case."

Justice Beth Baker delivered the opinion of the court.

Elaine Mitchell filed a class action against Glacier County and
the state of Montana in the District Court for the county of Lewis
and Clark in 2015.  Ms. Mitchell felt there were many deficiencies
in Glacier County government.  She alleged that Glacier County and
the state of Montana had not complied with budgeting and
accounting laws.

In 2013 and 2014 audits were conducted of the county's finances
and deficit balances were discovered.  The audits "identified
budget deficits in numerous county funds and stated that the
county had exceeded its budgetary authority in many of those
funds.  A subsequent county treasurer's report showed ongoing
deficit balances in a number of the County's funds," according to
the opinion.

The original complaint asked for injunctive relief, including:
"(2) a declaration that the county had failed to comply with
generally accepted governmental accounting standards; (3) a
declaration that the county was in violation of laws designed to
ensure 'strict accountability' of government finances; (4) a
declaration that county officials who incurred financial
obligations in excess of appropriations were personally liable for
the resulting budget deficits; (5) an order requiring the State to
withhold public funds from the county under the Single Audit Act
until the county complied with its budgeting obligations; (6) an
order requiring the State to hold County officials personally
liable for their failure to ensure strict accountability,"
according to the opinion.

In the second amended complaint, plaintiffs stated: "Based on the
2013 and 2014 audits of the county, and the deficiencies described
therein, it is foreseeable that the county's residents and
taxpayers would be injured as a result of the State's failure to
enforce the terms of the Single Audit Act to 'insure strict
accountability of all revenues received and money spent' by the
county.'"

The state and the county challenged the plaintiffs' standing to
sue after they moved for partial summary judgment.

Justice Michael Wheat dissented, noting, "The majority's
conclusions about the validity of the audit should be left to a
jury, not a judge.  Based on the deficiencies found within the
audits, the taxpayers should be afforded the opportunity to fully
explore and develop the alleged mismanagement of public funds.
Standing requirements should not be barriers to justice."

Plaintiffs were represented by Lawrence A. Anderson of Great
Falls, Montana.  Defendants were represented by Kirk D. Evenson --
kevenson@marralawfirm.com -- of Marra, Evenson & Bell, P.C., in
Great Falls (attorney for Glacier County) and Gary M. Zadick and
James R. Zadick -- jrz@uazh.com -- of Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick &
Higgins, P.C., in Great Falls (attorneys for State of Montana).
[GN]


HEALTH LINE: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Line One,
LLC. The case is styled as Bradly G. Marks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Health
Line One, LLC, doing business as: Insurance Line One, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08779 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2017).

Health Line is in the insurance agents, brokers, and service
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces "Roberts" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue
Recovery Group, LLC. The case is captioned as Lenell Roberts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, doing
business as: Account Resolution Services, the Defendant, Case No.
7:17-cv-08746 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to healthcare
sector. The company is based in Plantation, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HIGHER RESPONSE: Faces "Marks" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Higher Response
Marketing, Inc. The case is titled as Bradly Marks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Higher Response Marketing, Inc. doing business as: Medical Alert
King, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08780 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10,
2017).

Higher Response is a U.S. based corporation that specializes in
providing educational material for Internet Marketers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


HONDA MOTORS: Judge Junks Driver's Consumer Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem and Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge on Nov. 13 tossed a driver's putative
consumer fraud class action alleging Honda sold Accord and
Crosstour vehicles with defective engine starter systems, but gave
the driver a second chance to clarify allegations that Honda
knowingly sold consumers impaired cars.

U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan dismissed plaintiff Joel
Merkin's suit alleging Honda was aware of a defect in the starter
motors of 2013-2015 model year Honda Accord and Crosstour vehicles
containing V6 engines, but never disclosed the defect to the
general public.  However, Judge Sheridan dismissed the suit
without prejudice, allowing Mr. Merkin to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

Judge Sheridan said Mr. Merkin didn't provide enough detail to
back up his New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and common law fraud
claims that Honda knew of the starter motor defect beforehand yet
sold the problem vehicles to consumers anyway.

Mr. Merkin only cited two complaints made to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration about starter motor problems before
his July 2015 purchase of a pre-owned 2013 Honda Accord, Judge
Sheridan said, and neither of those posts were specific enough to
show some level of prior knowledge by Honda.

"First, these posts do not report to have had their vehicles
diagnosed starter problems.  Second, and more importantly, neither
post claimed to have directly reported their problem to Honda or
that Honda diagnosed their vehicles as having the starter defect,"
the judge said. "Simply put, even when taking into consideration
the 'totality of the allegations,' the court is unable to
reasonably infer that Honda had knowledge of the defect prior to
plaintiff's purchase."

Judge Sheridan also shot down Mr. Merkin's attempt to cite a
February 2016 technical service bulletin that Honda issued seven
months after Mr. Merkin bought his car as evidence of the
company's prior knowledge.

Mr. Merkin also struck out on his breach of express warranty claim
against Honda.  Mr. Merkin didn't experience starter issues until
the warranty period had expired and when the car was 3 years old
and had over 40,000 miles, the judge said.  Because Merkin alleged
that the defect manifested itself outside the warranty period, he
does not state a valid claim for breach of express warranty,
according to the order.

Judge Sheridan also rejected Mr. Merkin's argument that Honda's
warranty limitation was unconscionable.

"Here, the court finds fatal plaintiff's failure to allege any
facts demonstrating defendants' manipulation of warranty coverage
to avoid paying for replacement parts," Judge Sheridan said.  "As
discussed above, the record fails to support plaintiff's claim
that Honda had knowledge of the defect prior to his purchase."

So Honda could not have manipulated warranty coverage for a defect
it did not know existed, the judge said.

The judge also determined there wasn't enough to back up Mr.
Merkin's claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
because he failed to demonstrate that his vehicle was unfit for
purposes of driving, or his claim for breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, because he didn't identify any particular
conduct by Honda that demonstrated bad faith or malicious motive.

"Nor does plaintiff provide any facts for which this court could
possibly infer such motive or conduct," the judge said.  "Simply
put, plaintiff presents nothing more than '[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.'"

Honda moved for dismissal in August, saying the company couldn't
possibly hide a defect from consumers that it didn't even know
about.  Furthermore, Mr. Merkin drove his car around for months,
racking up thousands more miles, after he first began noticing the
starter problems, so his implied warranty and other claims were
lacking, Honda argued.

Mr. Merkin launched the suit in May claiming the engine starter,
or starter motor, that causes the engine to spin and "start" when
the ignition is turned on is defective in certain Honda Accord and
Crosstour vehicles.  And once this system malfunctions, the
vehicle stops working as the engine can't properly turn over,
Mr. Merkin claimed.

Mr. Merkin said that by May 2016, at least once or twice a week,
he'd have to turn the ignition key "repeatedly" before his car
would start.  Eventually, Mr. Merkin said, the starter problem
reached a point where, several times a day, he had to turn the key
multiple times to start the car.  When Mr. Merkin took his Accord
to a Honda dealer for service several months later, he was told
the vehicle was no longer under warranty and that he'd have to pay
$200 out of pocket for service and replacement of the defective
starter motor.

Mr. Merkin further alleged that Honda North America Inc. -- and
affiliated entities American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda Motor
Co. Ltd. -- had known about the defect since consumer complaints
started coming in four years ago, as well as from its own
technical reviews, and routinely refused to repair it free of
charge or issue a recall.

Representatives for Honda and an attorney for Mr. Merkin did not
immediately respond to requests for comment on Nov. 13.

Mr. Merkin is represented by Matthew D. Schelkopf --
mds@mccunewright.com -- Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com -
- and Joseph B. Kenney -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- of McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP.

Honda is represented by Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com
-- Darlene M. Cho -- dcho@sidley.com -- Livia M. Kiser --
lkiser@sidley.com -- and Tom Kayes -- tkayes@sidley.com -- of
Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Merkin v. Honda North America Inc. et al., case number
3:17-cv-03625, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. [GN]


IDEAL HEALTH: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ideal Health
Benefits, LLC. The case is entitled as Bradly Marks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Ideal Health Benefits, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08773
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


JASON'S PIZZA: Faces "Gutzmer" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jason's Pizza, Inc.
LLC. The case is styled as Wesley A Gutzmer and Clay Beilfuss
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Jason's Pizza, Inc. LLC doing business as:
Giordano's Restaurant, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08573 (N.D.
Ill. November 28, 2017).

Jason's Pizza, Inc. LLC doing business as: Giordano's Restaurant
is a pizzeria that specializes in Chicago-style stuffed pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chippewa County Joins Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tajma Hall, writing for WEAU, reports that as prescription drug
abuse remains a growing issue nationwide and in Wisconsin,
Chippewa County is joining a class action lawsuit against
prescription drug manufacturers.

"It was kind of ironic because the night that the county board
entertained this lawsuit, I got a text from dispatch, indicating
that we were responding to a possible overdose," said Chippewa
County Sheriff James Kowalczyk.

The lawsuit is asking prescription drug companies to reimburse
money the county has spent fighting the growing opioid epidemic.
Sheriff Kowalczyk says he supports the county's decision to join
the lawsuit.

"Any revenue, whether it be the result of a class action lawsuit
to fight opioid addiction and what it costs law enforcement would
greatly be appreciated," he says.

The sheriff's department says prescription drug abuse has become a
huge issue in Chippewa County, with a large majority of arrests
made being drug related.

"Our burglaries, our thefts, our domestics, it seems like a large
amount of those cases, the use and abuse of meth is greatly
associated with those cases," says Sheriff Kowalczyk

Some oppose the county's decision to join the suit, including a
County Board member who voted against the decision.  He says it's
unclear who to blame.

"You need a prescription to obtain an opioid so is it the drug
manufactures fault? Is it the doctor who prescribed the opioids?
No one gave us information to support joining a lawsuit and I
don't believe we should just freely join class action lawsuits,"
said Thomas Thornton, Chippewa County Board Representative.

Chippewa County isn't the only county involved. 28 other Wisconsin
counties are joining the lawsuit, including Eau Claire. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Crawford County Joins Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Tuggle, writing for Bucyrus Telegraph, reports that more than
15 pharmaceutical companies and their Ohio distributors are being
sued in federal court by Crawford County.

The county is joining forces with at least 20 other counties and
cities that have been affected by the pharmaceutical industry,
according to Crawford County Prosecutor Matt Crall.

"There are several entities that are suing the same companies for
the same thing," Mr. Crall explained.

Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma Inc. and Cardinal Health Inc. are
just a few of the companies named in the lawsuit.  The case is
being handled by six law firms from Texas, Mississippi, West
Virginia and Florida -- Mr. Crall's office has agreed to be
represented by attorneys from those firms.

"This is not costing the taxpayers a dime," Mr. Crall said.  "This
is being done on a contingency fee."

The same attorneys are handling similar cases in Kentucky and West
Virginia as well.

Although the suits are being filed at the same time, Mr. Crall
said the cases are not considered a class-action suit because each
entity suing has suffered a different amount of damages than the
others -- in a class-action suit, all parties are awarded the same
amount of compensation after the ruling.

Should the county be successful in its lawsuit, it will be awarded
compensation for costs incurred from the pharmaceutical industry:
jail costs, healthcare costs and the price of children's services.

"Any expenses," Mr. Crall said.  "We're suing to recover
monetarily."

Mr. Crall said many arrests, child-custody cases and hospital
visits would have never happened in the county had the
pharmaceutical companies behaved differently with the marketing of
their products.

"We're saying we have a pharmaceutical industry that has gone out
and told doctors these drugs were not addictive," Mr. Crall said.
"That's not true -- they knew they were addictive."

The lawsuit references a statistic that in 2010, enough
hydrocodone existed to provide every adult in the United States
with another 5 milligram dose every four hours for an entire
month.  Mr. Crall said that doctors are realizing now that
prescribing such drugs for extended periods of time leads to
addiction.

Mr. Crall said that since the county holds illicit drug dealers
and convicted drug users accountable, then it should also hold
pharmaceutical companies accountable.

It could be years before the case is actually finished.

"This is not a quick process," Mr. Crall said.  "We're in the
first step.  There will be tons of things going on nationwide and
we are just a small part of that.  I thought it was important that
Crawford County do its part to help lead this effort." [GN]


KENDO HOLDINGS: Products Fail to Include FDA Warning, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KENDO HOLDINGS, INC., KENDO BRANDS,
INC., SEPHORA USA, INC. and OLE HENRIKSEN, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC-17-562492 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017), seeks an order
compelling Defendants to, inter alia: (1) cease marketing and
selling Grease Relief, Grease Relief Tonic, Counter Balance, and
the AHA Products using the false, misleading, deceptive, and
unconscionable tactics; (2) conduct a corrective advertising
campaign; (3) destroy all misleading and deceptive materials and
products; (4) award Plaintiff and the Class members restitution,
actual damages, and punitive damages to the extent permitted under
the law; and (6) pay costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney.

The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell Ole
Henriksen Grease Relief (TM) Facial Water (("Grease Relief(") and
Ole Henriksen Grease Relief (TM) Tonic ("Grease Relief
Tonic"),cosmetics that purportedly remove and reduce facial grease
and improve complexion. Additionally, Defendants manufacture,
market, distribute, and sell Ole Henriksen Counter Balance (TM)
Oil Control Hydrator ("Counter Balance"), a cosmetic that
purportedly reduces facial grease, hydrates the skin, and helps
keep pores clear and skin matte. Further, Defendants manufacture,
market, distribute, and sell a number of Ole Henriksen cosmetic
products that contain alpha hydroxy acid (collectively "the AHA
Products").

Alpha hydroxy acids in cosmetic products remove the outermost
layer of dead skin cells, which has short-term cosmetic benefits
but which also increases the damage sun-exposed skin suffers from
ultraviolet radiation. This damage is permanent, and results in
both cosmetic damage and higher risk of cancer. The FDA recommends
to cosmetic manufacturers and sellers like Defendants that they
include the following warning on alpha hydroxy acid products:
"Sunburn Alert: This product contains an alpha hydroxy acid (AHA)
that may increase your skin's sensitivity to the sun and
particularly the possibility of sunburn. Use a sunscreen, wear
protective clothing, and limit sun exposure while using this
product and for a week afterwards."

According to the complaint, the Defendants believe that the use of
such warning would decrease sales and harm them financially.
For this reason, Defendants ignore the FDA recommendation, and
provide no warning their product can increase the risk of skin
burn and skin cancer. As a result, consumers use the AHA Products
with the hope of improving their skin health, when in reality,
they are damaging their skin. The Defendants used various
marketing methods to falsely represent that Grease Relief is a
safe and effective "grease relief face water" which would "refresh
[consumers'] complexion for a shine-free glow."

But Grease Relief Tonic does not effectively remove or prevent
grease, minimize the appearance of pores and breakouts, or provide
gentle exfoliation. The Defendants also used various marketing
methods to falsely represent that Counter Balancereduces facial
grease, hydrates the skin, and helps keep pores clear and skin
matte. But Counter Balance does not effectively reduce facial
grease, hydrate the skin, or keep pores clear and skin matte.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798 2006
          Facsimile: (619) 343 2789
          E-mail: greg@westonjirm.com
                  andrew@westonfirm.com


KEY FOOD MARKET: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Key Food Market,
Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Key Food Market, Inc.
and Key Food Stores Co-operative, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-09306 (S.D. N.Y. November 28, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate a chain of supermarkets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


KRONOS INC: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------
JONNAE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a
Virginia corporation, Defendant, and KRONOS INCORPORATED, a
Massachusetts corporation, Respondent In Discovery, the
Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-15152 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover damages a result of Defendant's violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant Sunrise owns and operates hundreds of senior living
communities throughout the United States. Through its communities,
Sunrise provides assisted living, personal care, independent
living, Alzheimer's and memory care, skilled nursing, and other
care. There are approximately 18 Sunrise facilities in Illinois.

When employees first begin their jobs at Sunrise, they are
required to scan their fingerprint in its time clocks. That's
because Sunrise uses a biometric time tracking system that
requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means of
authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. While
there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in
the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees
to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the
Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Sunrise disregards its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of
the BIPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichrnan@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfinn.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


LA MERIDIANA: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Meridiana, Ltd.
The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, And On Behalf Of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. La Meridiana, Ltd.,
La Meridiana 2 Ltd., and La Meridiana I, Ltd., Case No. 1:17-cv-
08787 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF N. M. GEHI, P.C.,
          118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 5999
          Facsimile: (718) 263 1685
          E-mail: nmgehi@gmail.com


LAMONT & HANLEY: Faces "Rivera" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamont, Hanley &
Associates, Inc. The case is captioned as Luis Rivera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lamont, Hanley & Associates, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06487 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8 , 2017).

Lamont & Hanley is a nationwide debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LASIK VISION: "Fiallos" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ricky Alexander Fiallos, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff, v. The Lasik Vision Institute, LLC, and Ben L. Cook,
the Defendants, Case No. 50-02017-CA-011031-XXXX-MB, was removed
from the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach Count, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West
Palm Beach) on Nov. 18, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 9:17-cv-81233-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

The Lasik Vision Institute, LLC provides laser vision corrective
services in the United States. It owns and operates as ophthalmic
centers. The Lasik Vision Institute, LLC was formerly known as The
Laser Vision Institute, LLC and changed its name to The Lasik
Vision Institute, LLC in 2003. The company was founded in 1999 and
is based in Lake Worth, Florida. The Lasik Vision Institute, LLC
was formerly a subsidiary of Vision Care Holdings, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Behren, Esq.
          BEHREN LAW FIRM
          2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 636 3802
          Facsimile: (772) 252 3365
          E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Merry Ellen Lindberg, Esq.
          Todd Sidney Aidman, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 345 7505
          Facsimile: (561) 345 7501
          E-mail: mlindberg@fordharrison.com
                  taidman@fordharrison.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Randolph" Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National
Corporation. The case is styled as Robert M Randolph and Stephanie
W Randolph as Trustee of the Robert M. Randolph 2008 irrevocable
life insurance trust dated April 1, 2008, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lincoln
National Corporation and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00949-A (N.D. Tex. November 28,
2017).

The Defendants operate multiple insurance and retirement
businesses in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   George Parker Young, Esq.
   Circelli Walter & Young PLLC
   500 East 4th Street, Suite 250
   Fort Worth, TX 76102
   Tel: (817) 697-4942
   Fax: (817) 697-4944
   Email: gpy@cwylaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shadow" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Sky D. Shadow, an
Individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02277-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2017). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.
MCM provides flexible payment plans and financial education
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MITCHELL GOLD: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mitchell Gold
Co. The case is styled as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Mitchell
Gold Co., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08737 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9,
2017).

Mitchell Gold, a home furnishings company, manufactures and sells
furniture. The company offers living, dining, and bedroom
furniture products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MGM RESORTS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michelle Spencer, Cindy VanDyke,
Jeffrey Sambrano, Amanda Sambrano, Stephen Sambrano, Janae
Sambrano, Michael Sambrano Ashlie Guerrero, Miguel Guerrero, and
Stanley Rendon, on behalf of themselves and a class of all members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Stephen Paddock, a deceased individual; MGM Resorts International,
a Delaware Corporation; Mandalay Corporation, a Nevada
Corporation; The Estate of Stephen Paddock; Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation; Live Nation Group,
doing business as OneNation, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company; OneNation LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680065,
was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 15, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-08332-JAK-FFM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A.
Kronstadt.

MGM Resorts is a global hospitality and entertainment company
operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Mississippi, New
Jersey and Detroit, including Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mandalay Bay
and The Mirage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander D Napolin, Esq.
          Catherine R Lombardo, Esq.
          NAPOLIN LAW FIRM INC
          269 W Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 325 6032
          Facsimile: (909) 614 7373
          E-mail: NapolinLawFirm@gmail.com
                  cathlom@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Farris E Ain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FARRIS AIN
          269 West Bonita Avenue Suite A
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 626 1166
          Facsimile: (909) 625 7772
          E-mail: ain@ainlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard Joseph Doren, Esq.
          Debra Wong Yang, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue 45th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229 7038
          Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
          E-mail: rdoren@gibsondunn.com
                  dwongyang@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Brad Dennis Brian, Esq.
          Michael Robert Doyen, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          Telephone: (213) 683 9100
          Facsimile: (213) 683 5180
          E-mail: brad.brian@mto.com
                  michael.doyen@mto.com


MOLTENI & C SPA: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Molteni & C S.P.A.
The case is titled as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Molteni & C S.P.A.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08724 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Molteni manufactures and markets home furniture. The company
offers bookshelves and multimedia products, wardrobes, walk-in
closets, and sofas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces "Cintron" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monterey Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lazarao Cintron, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Monterey Financial Services, Inc., doing business as: Monterey
Collections, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11537 (D.N.J., Nov.
10, 2017).

Monterey Financial provides receivables financing solutions. It
offers consumer finance programs for clients offering retail sales
and flex pay plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Ann Pirillo, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 203 7601
          E-mail: mpirillo@sanderslawpllc.com


MORSE OPERATIONS: "Houser" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY EACHO HOUSER and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees, the Plaintiff, v. MORSE OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a ED MORSE
SA WGRASS CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE PONTIAC, a Florida Profit
Corporation and EDWARD J. MORSE, III, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-020817 (in the Cir. Ct. of the 17th
Judicial Cir. in and for Broward County, Fla., Nov. 15, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt
service advisor from 2010 through July 26, 2017. During the
relevant time period, Plaintiff performed approximately 20 hours
of overtime each week for which Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
at a proper overtime rate. The Plaintiff was not properly
compensated for all hours worked.[BN]

Morse Operations sells motor vehicles throughout Tampa, Central,
and South Florida. It operates and franchises dealership locations
that sell new and used cars, trucks, and SUVs, as well as offer
parts and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTION CITY: "Arambula" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS ARAMBULA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
General, the Plaintiff, v. MOTION CITY TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC683728 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 15, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, restitution and
compensation for work performed and moneys under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's initial weeks
of work, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours each week, but was,
only paid $300. The Defendant labeled this pay as "training pay,"
even though Plaintiff was working full time as a truck driver
during that period. After the initial weeks of alleged "training,"
Plaintiff received a lump sum payment of $800 per week. Then,
Plaintiff was later paid "by the load" up until his termination in
March 2017. Therefore, Plaintiff was not paid for non-productive
time, or for his non-driving tasks, including his break periods.

Motion City is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          ANA L. DE LA TORRE, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ana@carlinbuchsbaum.com


MRO CORPORATION: "Shoyinka" Suit Alleges Double Billing of Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAKASHA SHOYINKA and LORIA ROGERS, Individually and on behalf
of others that have requested and purchased Protected Health
Information through MRO Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. MRO
CORPORATION (PA), and JOHN DOE, the Defendant, Case No.
2017CV297899 (Superior Court of Fulton County, Ga, Nov. 14, 2017),
seeks an order for declaratory judgment estopping MRO from further
double billing for its administrative costs in searching and
retrieving.

MRO serves many hospitals in the State of Georgia and across the
United States, and extends its business practice of requesting
administrative charges for each of the medical records and payment
history of an individual who sought healthcare at each of the
hospitals MRO serves. As such, the Class contains many individuals
that are affected by the business practice of MRO. The underlying
action arises out of certain conducts of Defendants discharging
their duties in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yinka T. Omole, Esq.
          Post Office Box 18339
          Atlanta, Georgia 30316
          Telephone: (404) 624 3011
          Facsimile: (404) 624 3012
          E-mail: ylawfirm@gmail.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Muhlstock" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit &
Collection, Inc. The case is captioned as Melanie Muhlstock,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit & Collection, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06553 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Nationwide Credit has been the premier collection agency for many
of Chicago's most notable hospitals and Physicians groups.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NATUZZI UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natuzzi Upholstery,
Inc. The case is captioned as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Natuzzi
Upholstery, Inc. and Natuzzi Americas, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
08719 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Natuzzi is a furniture company founded in 1959 by Pasquale
Natuzzi.[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
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


NFL: Debilitated Players Await Settlement Payments
--------------------------------------------------
Ken Belson, writing for New York Times, reports that the families
of debilitated former N.F.L. players say the league is obstructing
their access to an estimated $1 billion settlement over
concussions by reflexively rejecting valid claims and bogging down
the process with unreasonable demands.

After a contentious five-year fight between the league and many
former players who had accused the N.F.L. of hiding the dangers of
head trauma, the two sides agreed in 2015 to a settlement that
covers nearly every former player for the next 65 years.

Now the families and their lawyers describe a succession of
roadblocks as they try to claim payouts, from as little as a few
thousand dollars to potentially several million dollars, to help
thousands of retired players left mentally infirm, in some cases
severely, from years of hits and tackles on the league's fields.

Of 1,400 claims filed so far, 140 have been approved, which legal
experts say is startlingly low.  The remaining 90 percent of those
claims are in the process of being evaluated or have been sent
back to the players and their lawyers to amend before they can be
approved.

The 140 approved claims are worth $195 million, but the N.F.L. has
written checks for only $100 million.  The remainder is expected
to be released after appeals are exhausted.  The league has
appealed eight awards that the administrator granted, and 12
players have appealed their awards, calling them too low.  The
administrator also randomly audits 10 percent of all claims.

When the league agreed to the settlement several years ago,
retired players were told that they could expect speedy payouts,
assuming the diagnoses for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other
ailments covered in the settlement were in order.

But the N.F.L. installed so many safeguards and trapdoors into the
deal, lawyers for the players said, that in the eight months since
the court-approved administrator of the settlement began accepting
claims, many players have been forced to spend months scrounging
for paperwork they did not think they had to keep, finding new
doctors to confirm established diagnoses and lodging time-
consuming appeals.

The requests, the league said, are part of its efforts to deter
potential fraud and do not represent foot-dragging or a lack of
will to help the sick men.  But as a result, the players now
accuse the nation's richest league, with $14 billion in revenue,
of trying to wear them down so they accept smaller payouts, or
none at all.

"Players will be shorted what they earned," said Andrew Stewart, a
retired defensive lineman with Parkinson's disease who expected to
receive nearly $3 million but, after a series of delays and
requests, has been offered less than a third of that amount and is
appealing. "This is not a settlement. This is about paying sick
men as little as possible."

Mr. Stewart, who was in the league from 1989 to 1993 and now lives
in Canada, received a Parkinson's diagnosis nearly a decade ago
and has been receiving aid from two N.F.L. benefit plans.  But to
receive money from the settlement, he was required to get a
diagnosis from an American doctor.

Alerted to some of the delays and accusations of unfairness
leveled by lawyers for the players, Anita B. Brody, the federal
judge overseeing the case, met with the N.F.L., the plaintiffs'
chief lawyer and a court-appointed administrator on Nov. 13 in
Philadelphia to look at ways handle claims more efficiently and
more transparently.

"Like an insurance company, they deny everything, and they go
through a series of denials until people give up," said
Sheilla Dingus, who runs Advocacy for Fairness in Sports, an
unaffiliated nonprofit group that monitors the league's legal
cases. "Unfortunately, the N.F.L. has the capital to keep this
going a lot longer than some of these players will live."

Orran Brown, the court-approved administrator of the settlement,
said it was common for the parties to settlements to fine-tune
their agreements to account for issues that arise. He said that
players were now, for instance, being asked to turn in the raw
scores from their neurocognitive exams even though that was not
explicit in the original agreement.

He said the bulk of the claims that had been sent back to players
were for missing paperwork.  But another group of claims has been
reviewed because many players were receiving identical diagnoses
from the same physician, leading to questions of whether the
players had been properly examined.

Mr. Brown said he understood that players and their lawyers might
view these additional requirements with suspicion. But he said
they were part of an effort to prevent fraud, not block real
claims.

"It does seem people feel they are being nickeled and dimed on
paperwork," Mr. Brown said.  "But there's nothing nefarious or
conspiratorial in this.  The goal is to make sure everyone gets
paid for legitimate claims."

The former players who have filed claims are seeking up to $5
million each -- though most will probably receive far less -- for
severe neurological diseases tied to years of head hits on the
field.  A total of 20,000 retired players registered so they could
submit claims now or in the future from the settlement, which
offers one-time cash awards for those with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia and chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease linked to
repeated head hits that is diagnosed posthumously.

Chris Seeger, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that the
administration of such class-action settlements often had "growing
pains" because of unanticipated problems.  In this case, some
former players have "pushed the envelope," he said, by, among
other things, obtaining diagnoses from psychologists, not
neurologists; having doctors affirm diagnoses without examining
patients; or submitting claims without the necessary medical
records.

By bouncing claims back to players, the administrator is trying to
address "some funny things that didn't look right," and to ensure
that when claims are finally evaluated, they have a better chance
of being approved, Mr. Seeger said.

Mr. Seeger disputes claims by lawyers who accuse the N.F.L. of
foot-dragging and trying to reduce payments to players.

"Is this working perfectly? No," Mr. Seeger said.  But "if there
aren't sufficient records to support a diagnosis, then we have a
problem," he said. "The procedures are laid out, but there is
early on typically confusion.  Some of it is legitimate stuff that
is getting worked out."

Many lawyers for the players do not agree with that explanation.
The high number of claims that have been questioned, they said, is
evidence that fraud prevention is being used as a way to keep down
payouts.

"I worked at State Farm for 10 years, so I understand all the
tactics," said Patrick Tighe, a lawyer in Florida who represents
90 players. "There are all sorts of ways to slow down the claims."

All 35 claims Mr. Tighe has filed have been audited or sent back
because of "deficiencies," he said.  Jim Acho, a lawyer in
Michigan who represents former players, including Gale Sayers,
said that just four of the nearly three dozen claims he had filed
were approved, and that two of those were audited.

Jason Luckasevic, who represents dozens of former N.F.L. players,
has filed more than 100 claims, and more than 85 percent of them
have been flagged for deficiencies.

"The settlement was sold by the N.F.L. and Seeger as quick pay,"
Mr. Luckasevic said.  "This was something everyone feared. This is
the N.F.L. disability plan version 2.0."

The N.F.L., which insisted on much of the fraud prevention
language in the settlement, denies that it has pushed the
administrator to deliberately delay the payment of genuine claims,
and it said that stricter requirements were not added after the
deal was made final.

"There have been no changes in the terms of the settlement
agreement or the criteria for claims approval since the settlement
was finalized," Brian McCarthy, a spokesman for the N.F.L., said
in a statement, adding that neither the league nor Mr. Seeger had
taken any steps to delay the payment of legitimate claims.

The frustration among players is particularly acute for those
whose neurological diseases were diagnosed years before the
settlement was approved, and who are receiving benefits for those
ailments from the N.F.L. under one of its regular disability
plans.  The delays are making it harder for them to cover
escalating medical costs and, in some cases, to repay high-
interest loans they took out using their settlement as collateral.

Yet many players are afraid to speak publicly about their cases
because they fear the N.F.L. will deny their claims or strip them
of other benefits.

Mr. Stewart, one of the few who would talk, said the league must
be held accountable.  He was found to have Parkinson's disease in
2009, when he was 43.

Mr. Stewart expected to receive a gross award of $2.8 million from
the concussions settlement.  But after he filed a claim, he was
told that another doctor had to confirm his diagnosis.

The new diagnosis, though, would have applied to his current age,
51, which would have reduced his award by $1.2 million because in
the settlement, older players are paid less than younger players
on the presumption that their disease is related to age, not
football.

After Mr. Stewart submitted much additional paperwork, the
administrator recognized the earlier diagnosis.  But the award was
reduced to $750,000 because the administrator calculated he had
played only one season, not four.

In the deal, the more eligible seasons a player has, the higher
the exposure and the higher the award.  But the number of seasons
is reduced if players spent time on the injured reserved list
because they presumably were not exposed to head hits then.

Mr. Stewart does not dispute being injured for parts of his
career.  But in his day, coaches forced him to keep practicing --
often with the aid of painkillers -- so he was exposed to head
hits even if he did not play on game day.

In many ways, the N.F.L. case is different from many settlements,
experts said.  Most settlements describe the kinds of documents to
support claims, like a credit card number or a receipt.  In the
N.F.L. settlement, many retirees are applying for benefits for
dementia, which can be complicated to diagnose because it is more
subjective than, say, A.L.S.

Because awards can reach millions of dollars, the players' lawyers
-- many of whom receive a percentage any settlement -- have an
incentive to make their clients look worse than they may be, a
reason for the N.F.L. to be alert to fraud, experts said.

Indeed, when the deal was first announced in 2013, the N.F.L.
agreed to pay $765 million.  But players feared the money would
run out before every claim was filed, so the league agreed to
"uncap" payments. In return for unlimited liability, the N.F.L.
insisted on stronger rules to block fraudulent claims.

But the slow pace of approved claims has raised questions about
whether those rules were meant to do more than fight fraud.

Kenneth Feinberg, who has administered large class-action
settlements, including those related to the BP oil spill and the
attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, said that in the cases he had handled,
defendants had a right to try to prevent fraud.  But the delays
that have come from questioning a large number of claims can erode
trust in the settlement.

"It's not just how many claims have been found eligible, but how
quickly the money goes out the door," said Mr. Feinberg, who is
not involved in the N.F.L. case.  "All the words in the world are
no substitute for visible evidence of generosity, and checks
flowing to families in need." [GN]


NRA GROUP: Adding Collection Costs Did Not Violate FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Eidelman, writing for insideARM, reports that on
November 1, 2017, a judge from the North District of Illinois
ruled that adding collection costs to the balance of a debt did
not violate the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692
et seq. (FDCPA), if such costs were permitted as part of the
underlying contract.  The certified putative class action case is
Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC (1:16-cv-01904, U.S.D.C., Northern
District of Illinois).

Background

Plaintiff Joseph Bernal entered into a monthly membership
agreement with Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (Six Flags).
Plaintiff became delinquent on this agreement and Six Flags placed
the debt with AR Assist, LLC (AR Assist), who then contracted NRA
Group, LLC (NRA) to collect on the debt.  In their attempts to
collect the debt, NRA Group, LLC added a percentage-based charge,
labeled "costs" to the principal balance. Plaintiff filed a class
action lawsuit against NRA alleging FDCPA violations due to his
assertions that NRA had no right to collect such "costs."

The "costs" at issue were for collection costs.  The parties
agreed that the main issue in the case turned on whether Bernal's
contract with Six Flags, which provided in relevant part that if
his account was not paid he would "be billed for any amounts that
are due and owing plus any costs (including reasonable attorney's
fees) incurred by [Six Flags] in attempting to collect amounts due
or otherwise enforcing this agreement."

The plaintiff argued that the above provision allowed him to be
charged only when it actually cost a debt collector to collect the
amount owed.  On the other hand, the defendant argued that the
contract allowed the consumer to be charged what Six Flags paid a
debt collector to collect the debt, even if that charge was a
fixed percentage of the principal amount alleged to be owed.

After denying both parties' motions for summary judgment, the case
went to bench trial where the judge ruled on the issues.

Editor's note: A motion for summary judgment is based upon a claim
by one party (or, in some cases, both parties) that contends that
all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need
not be tried.  The summary judgment is appropriate when the court
determines there no factual issues remaining to be tried, and
therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint
can be decided upon certain facts without trial.

The Court's Decision

The main issue in the case was the conflicting interpretations of
the underlying membership agreement, specifically what constitutes
a cost and if the cost was authorized by the agreement.

The cost at issue was a percentage-based charge added to the
principal balance.  The court adopted NRA's interpretation of the
Six Flags provision, stating that the contract allows for
collection of costs incurred to collect a debt, regardless of how
the cost is calculated.  The provision did not prohibit Six Flags
from retaining an outside debt collector to collect the debt, and
the fees owed by Six Flags to a debt collector for any successful
collection are "costs" incurred by Six Flags.

Importantly, the court refused to adopt a decision from the Eighth
Circuit and Eleventh Circuit that held a debt collector's
percentage-based fee is not a cost related to collection because
it has no direct correlation to the actual costs of a debt
collector's collection effort.  In distinguishing this line of
cases, the court stated those decisions are based on the faulty
premise that costs of collection were only out-of-pocket costs
incurred by the collecting party, and not the creditor's costs of
collection.

Moreover, the court dismissed the notion that a collection fee
could not be recovered from a consumer because it had not yet been
incurred, i.e., a debt collector's contingent fee is not
recoverable at the time of collection. To quote the court:

That cannot be right . . . Aside from being trivial or ridiculous,
that distinction certainly makes no difference to a debtor.  How
could it possibly harm or mislead the debtor for a debt collector
to set forth both amounts (the principal amount due and the
collection fee) in a single letter, as opposed to first collecting
the original debt and only then revealing and seeking payment of
the collection fee?

Per the contract, plaintiff could be "billed for any amounts that
are due and owing plus any costs (including reasonable attorney's
fees) incurred by [Six Flags] in attempting to collect amounts due
or otherwise enforcing this agreement." The court found that the
cost charged in this case by the debt collector was less than the
amount a debt collector could have charged and as such there was
no FDCPA violation.

The class certification remains.

insideARM Perspective

This is an important and timely decision from the Northern
District, for more than the obvious reason.

For those collecting collection fees that are contingency-based,
this is a good, common-sense decision but proceed with caution.
There is a lot of conflicting case law on this issue. Be sure to
consult with your attorney regarding how you are charging any fee
other than the actual amount of the debt.

The decision also underscores the importance of the contract
underlying the debt. For creditors in any market vertical, it is
absolutely critical that consumer agreements clearly articulate
the costs to a consumer should their account be sent to
collections, including their responsibility for any collection
costs as well as transaction costs.

Lastly, we know the CFPB is looking at the provision in the FDCPA
underlying this matter.  The FDCPA prohibits "[t]he collection of
any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense
incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is
expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(1).  Our understanding is
that the CFPB is interpreting this provision very narrowly, and it
is possible, if not likely, that the Bureau may apply its narrow
interpretation in its notice of proposed rulemaking (whenever that
may be released). [GN]


OVASCIENCE INC: Must Face Class Action Over IVF Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that shareholders suing
OvaScience Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the success of its
fertility treatment have urged a Massachusetts federal court to
keep their proposed class action alive, saying they have
sufficiently detailed their claims.

The proposed class of shareholders said on Nov. 9 the court should
reject OvaScience's dismissal bid because they have adequately
claimed that the company and executives knowingly misrepresented
the number of cycles expected to be in process for its fertility
treatment Augment by the end of 2015 as well as the treatment's
success rate, ultimately causing share prices to plunge more than
$50 apiece during the class period.

"Defendants cannot use their infirm, fact-bound and premature
arguments as a means to avoid liability for their fraud," the
filing said.

Shareholder Fadi Dahhan said in a March complaint OvaScience
violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the science
behind and success rates of Augment, which was meant to increase
IVF success rates, as well as the company's profitability.  The
stock ultimately dropped to $1.47 per share on Aug. 25 from a high
of $55.69 per share between Jan. 8, 2015, and March 26, 2015, the
complaint says.

Mr. Dahhan said on Nov. 9 the suit sufficiently alleges the time,
place and content of each purported misrepresentation, and should
therefore survive the company's dismissal bid.

OvaScience had indicated it would have 1,000 active treatment
cycles of Augment in process by the end of 2015, according to
court documents.  The investors say this was untrue, as the
company had sold just 35 cycles in 2015 by that September, but the
company has countered that it expected the majority of cycles to
occur during the fourth quarter of 2015 until "M&A activities"
eliminated those cycles "unexpectedly," the filing says.

"These arguments are baseless for numerous reasons," the filing
says.

During the first eight months of 2015, the company sold just 1.7
percent of its targeted 1,000 treatments, making OvaScience
unlikely to achieve its goal, the filing notes.

OvaScience had said in a 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for 2014 that it expected to record the bulk
of revenue from Augment in the fourth quarter of 2015, according
to court documents.  The company expected to record this revenue
between 30 and 120 days after selling a cycle, meaning they likely
had been expecting to sell more cycles earlier in the year,
according to Mr. Dahhan.

At the time, the company had said the M&A activity would delay the
1,000 cycles, but the cycles never fully occurred at all,
according to the filing.

Mr. Dahhan further claims that the company and executives had
knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.  The company and executives
knew about each cycle because "they maintained a presence at every
IVF clinic performing Augment, conducted a part of every Augment
cycle, created an international registry of Augment data, and
closely tracked all aspects of the treatment," the filing says.

Counsel for the parties didn't immediately respond on Nov. 13 to
requests for comment.

Mr. Dahhan is represented by Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com --
Stephen R. Astley -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com -- Elizabeth A. Shonson -
- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- Sabrina E. Tirabassi --
stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com -- Constantine P. Economides --
CEconomides@rgrdlaw.com -- and Trig R. Smith -- trigs@rgrdlaw.com
-- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Alan L. Kovacs of the Law
OFfice of Alan L. Kovacs and Michael E. Criden of Criden & Love
PA.

OvaScience is represented by John F. Sylvia -- JSylvia@mintz.com -
- Matthew D. Levitt -- MDLevitt@mintz.com -- and Emily B.
Kanstroom -- EKMusgrave@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky and Popeo PC.

The case is Fadi Dahhan v. OvaScience Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-10511 (D. Mass.).  The case is assigned to Judge Indira
Talwani.  The case was filed March 24, 2017. [GN]


PANERA BREAD: Faces "Meyer" Suit in District of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera Bread
Company. The case is styled as Alan Meyer and David Cornelius,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Panera Bread Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02565 (D. C., November 29, 2017).

Panera Bread Company is an operator within the bakery-cafe
category.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PEPSI BEVERAGES: "Grice" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Altareek Grice, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pepsi
Beverages Company and Does 1 Through 10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01842, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Nov. 14, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08853-JPO to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul
Oetken.

The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. was the world's largest bottler of
Pepsi-Cola beverages. PBG sales of Pepsi-Cola beverages accounted
for more than one-half of the Pepsi-Cola beverages sold in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Hisataka Liu, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652 3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652 3101
          E-mail: jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Seeks Transfer of Biometrics Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mayhew, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that
Pineapple Hospitality Co. and Pineapple Restaurant Group LLC
petitioned to move a putative class action that alleges the
companies violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) to Illinois federal court, according to a Law360 report.

The luxury hotelier requested the move from state court under the
Class Action Fairness Act because the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

In an October complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the
lead plaintiff claimed that the company did not follow proper
procedure to notify her and her coworkers that Pineapple was
collecting, storing and using their fingerprints, putting the
putative class of workers in danger, as biometric data in the
wrong hands can result in complex identity theft.

More than two dozen suits that have been filed under the Illinois
BIPA law since the summer, including one against a nursing home.

The complaint alleges that when Pineapple implemented a
biometrics-based timekeeping system the company failed to notify
its employees of what it was doing, putting them at risk.  The
putative class includes anyone who was asked to give their
fingerprint to clock in and clock out at work.

The complaint asks for $5,000 in damages for each willful
violation of BIPA and $1,000 in damages for each negligent
violation. [GN]


PITZER COLLEGE: "Cekov" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CEKOV, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PITZER COLLEGE, a
Domestic Non-Profit California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC682871 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13,
2017), challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting
in violations of the California Labor Code and California Business
and Professions Code against employees of Defendants.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified their employees as
"independent contractors" when the true classification should have
been that of "employee." The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of
herself and the members of the putative class as a result of
employment policies, practices and procedures more specifically
described below, which violate the
California Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by
the California Department [of Industrial Relations, Industrial
Welfare Commission, and Division of Labor Standards, and which
have resulted in the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and
members of the putative class all wages due to them.

Pitzer College is a private residential liberal arts college
located in Claremont, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Erik B. Feingold, Esq.
          MYERS, WIDDERS, GIBSON,
          JONES & FEINGOLD, LLP
          5425 Everglades Street
          Ventura, CA 93006-7209
          Telephone: (805) 644 7188
          Facsimile: (805) 644 7390


PREFERRED CARE: Assael Sues over Eye Care Benefits
--------------------------------------------------
STEVEN F. ASSAEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Preferred Care Partners, Inc. and
iCare Health Solutions LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-
020761 (Cir. Ct. of the 17th Cir. in and for Broward County, Fla.,
Nov. 14, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff entered into health benefit
care contracts with Preferred Care, which is wholly owned by
United HealthGroup, Inc., and whose contracts name iCare as its
partner and/or sub-contractor that provides benefits to
beneficiaries via participating eye care retail outlets for
services including the purchase of prescription eye glass lenses,
frames and contact lenses. The contracts and/or corresponding
summary of benefits provided by Preferred Care to Plaintiff and
the other members of the class and Preferred Care provide for a
credit of either $200 or $300, depending on the particular policy,
to be used toward lenses/ frames and contact lenses. However,
unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, iCare
is improperly limiting member benefits to eye glass lenses, frames
or contact lenses, even if the combined cost of each is below the
Benefit Limitation. iCare and Preferred Care failed to follow the
contractual terms clearly set forth in the policy language
provided to the Class as written in the membership contracts and
the summary of benefits brochures.  In addition, a member can only
get the full Benefit Limitation provided if their purchase happens
to be $200 or $300 or they purchase items that cost more than
benefit provided, because, as explained in a letter from a
Preferred Care representative to Plaintiff, in addition to the
annual credit only being permitted to be used for one item,
lenses/frames or contacts, not both, as the language in Preferred
Care contract and summary of benefits clearly indicates, the
annual credit benefit is purportedly a one-time use, meaning that
if a member does not use the full amount of the Benefit Limitation
in his first claim then the member loses the remaining balance of
the credit. Finally, iCare retailers charge an excessive amount
for their lenses, well above market value and at a price equal to
their full credit, thereby preventing subscribers from the full
benefit of the true value of the Eye Wear Benefit.[BN]

Preferred Care Partners provides Medicare advantage health plans.
It offers Medicare advantage plans in various Florida counties,
including Broward.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          Steven N. Saul, Esq.
          EGGNATZ I PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  JEggantz@JusticeEarned.com
                  SSaul@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Mark Levine, Esq.
          Melissa Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022
          E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com
                  memert@ssbny.com


PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive County
Mutual Insurance Company. The case is titled as Blaise Williams,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company,
Progressive Corporation, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
and Mitchell International, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-02282-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LISA J. FRISELLA, APC
          2139 First Avenue, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 260 3500
          Facsimile: (619) 260 3600
          E-mail: Kim@frisellalaw.com


PROSPER INC: Faces "Cintron" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosper, Inc. The
case is captioned as Lazarao Cintron, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Prosper, Inc.
and Monterey Financial Services, Inc., doing business as: Monterey
Collections, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11530 (D.N.J., Nov.
10, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RAPID REALTY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Realty
Franchise LLC. The case is titled as Jason Camacho, And On Behalf
Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rapid
Realty Franchise LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06596
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2017).

Rapid Realty is New York City's largest rental-based real estate
brokerage and the first rental brokerage in New York to utilize a
business franchise model. As of December 2013, Rapid Realty had 65
offices. The company is based in Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NARESH M. GEHI, P.C.
          118-21 Queens Blvd, Suite 411
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 5999
          Facsimile: (718) 263 1685
          E-mail: nmgehi@gmail.com


REDZONE COIL: "Lansford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACEN LANSFORD, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. REDZONE COIL TUBING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00225 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, during his tenure with the Defendants,
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis and was not paid an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant
knew of, approved of, and benefited from Plaintiff's regular and
overtime work. Plaintiff was not an "exempt" employee. The
Defendant did not make a good faith effort to comply with the
minimum wage or overtime provisions contained within the FLSA.
Defendant's actions were willful and in blatant disregard for
Plaintiff's federally protected rights.

Redzone Coil, an energy company, offers coiled tubing services.
The company was founded in 2011 and is based in Lufkin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, Texas 77018
          Telephone: 713 868 3388
          Facsimile: 713 683 9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Nappy" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP. The case is captioned as John F. Nappy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Resurgent Capital Services, LP and LVNV Funding, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06511 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Resurgent Capital manages and services domestic and international
consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. It
manage accounts across the credit spectrum, including performing
accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts, secured accounts, and
unsecured accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Devitt" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP. The case is entitled as Thomas Devitt, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Resurgent Capital Services, LP and LVNV Funding, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06523 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Resurgent Capital manages and services domestic and international
consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. It
manage accounts across the credit spectrum, including performing
accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts, secured accounts, and
unsecured accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


RINCON ARGENTINO: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rincon Argentino
Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own
and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rincon Argentino Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-24304-JLK (S.D. Fla., November 29, 2017).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com

      - and -

   Pamela Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, P.A.
   333 Las Olas, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: pchavez@advocacypa.com


RITE AIDE: Heller Sues over Cold Sandwiches Sales Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HELLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RITE AIDE, INC.; and Does 1-100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC683134 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of all Class
members, including reimbursement for any and all economic damage
sustained as a result of retail sales taxes collection.

The case is a class action brought against Rite Aid, Inc., on
behalf of the Plaintiff, all those similarly situated and the
California consuming public consisting of all persons or entities
in the United States who, for the four-year period prior to the
filing of this Complaint, purchased from a Rite Aid retail
consumer sales store, cold food products on a to-go basis, which
constitute food for human consumption, and who paid California
retail sales taxes upon transaction. Rite Aid has negligently
and/or intentionally sold a wide variety of cold sandwiches,
"wraps", and other foods, including but not limited to, entire
line of "fresh fare sandwiches" and has collected California
retail sales taxes upon such sales since the beginning of the
Class Period.

Despite its actual and/or constructive knowledge that the
collection of the California State retail sales taxes on the
products has been prohibited under California law, Rite Aid has
fraudulently and/or negligently continued to collect said taxes to
the derogation of the rights of the Plaintiff and the subject
Class. Further, despite the fact that Rite Aid, knew, should have
known, or recklessly disregarded this illegal practice during the
relevant period, it did not disclose the illegality of this
practice to past, current or future purchasers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
          LEGAL GP
          9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 310-980-7749
          E-mail: MHK@LEGALGP.Com


RITEAID PAYROLL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riteaid Payroll
Management Inc. The case is styled as Lilia Miner on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riteaid
Payroll Management Inc., Thrifty Payless, Inc., Rite Aid
Corporation and 660 Thrifty Payless, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
BCV-17-102760 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2017).

Riteaid Payroll Management Inc. is in the Management Services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric A. Grover, Esq.
   Keller Grover LLP
   1965 Market St
   San Francisco, CA 94103
   Tel: (415) 543-1305
   Fax: (415) 543-7861
   Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of all common stockholders of Ruby
Tuesday, Inc. (NYSE:RT) ("Ruby Tuesday" or the "Company") opposing
the proposed acquisition of Ruby Tuesday by NRD Capital.  As a
result of the merger, Ruby Tuesday shareholders are anticipated to
receive $2.40 in cash in exchange for each share of Ruby Tuesday.

The complaint seeks relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and
all other similarly situated shareholders of Ruby Tuesday and
asserts that the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and/or
protect the interests of Ruby Tuesday shareholders.

If you currently own common stock of Ruby Tuesday and would like
to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate
as a plaintiff without cost or obligation to you, please request
more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at
hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. [GN]


SCAVOLINI USA: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scavolini USA Inc.
The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Scavolini USA Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08680 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

Scavolini USA was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes distributing lumber, plywood, and millwork.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


STEIN MART: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stein Mart Inc. The
case is styled as Andres Gomez, on himself and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stein Mart
Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24283-DPG
(S.D. Fla. November 28, 2017).

Defendant Stein Mart, Inc. is a Florida corporation, which is a
retailer that sells products through its retail stores through
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way
   Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com

      - and -

   Pamela Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, P.A.
   333 Las Olas, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: pchavez@advocacypa.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Maseman Seeks to Enjoin Merger with NRD Capital
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELL MASEMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC., JAMES F.
HYATT, II, STEPHEN I. SADOVE MARK W. ADDICKS, F. LANE CARDWELL,
JR., KEVIN T. CLAYTON, DONALD E. HESS, BERNARD LANIGAN, JR. and
JEFFREY J. O'NEILL, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00478 (E.D.
Tenn., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any
steps to consummate a proposed transaction unless and until
material information is disclosed to Ruby Tuesday's shareholders
or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Exchange Act.

This case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other ordinary shareholders of Ruby Tuesday, Inc.,
against Defendants for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
proposed merger between Ruby Tuesday and NRD Capital. The
Defendants have violated the above-referenced Sections of the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
proxy statement to be filed with the SEC and disseminated to Ruby
Tuesday shareholders. The Proxy Statement recommends that Ruby
Tuesday shareholders vote in favor of a merger whereby NRD, by way
of a merger with RTI Holding Company, LLC and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, RTI Merger Sub, LLC, in an all-cash transaction, will
acquire Ruby Tuesday, with Ruby Tuesday surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Holding. Pursuant to the terms of the
agreement and plan of merger the companies entered into, Holding
will acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Ruby Tuesday
common stock in a going private transaction. Ruby Tuesday common
stockholders will receive $2.40 in cash in exchange for each share
of Ruby Tuesday common stock they hold prior to the effective time
of the merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, NRD will acquire
Ruby Tuesday in a transaction valued at approximately $146.3
million to shareholders. NRD will also assume or retire all debt
obligations for a total enterprise value of approximately $335
million. The Merger Consideration appears inadequate, and the
process by which Defendants consummated the Proposed Transaction
is fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and the other common
shareholders of Ruby Tuesday. Defendants have now asked Ruby
Tuesday's shareholders to support the Proposed Transaction based
upon the materially incomplete and misleading representations and
information contained in the Proxy Statement, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Both Holding and Merger Sub are affiliates of NRD Partners II,
L.P. Specifically, the Proxy Statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the terms
and details surrounding any alternative indications of interest
the Company solicited or received from other companies; (ii) the
financial projections for both Ruby Tuesday; (iii) the financial
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, UBS
Securities LLC, in support of its fairness opinion; and (iv) the
actual Merger Consideration. The special meeting of Ruby Tuesday
shareholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is approaching.
It is imperative that the material information omitted from the
Proxy Statement is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior
to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and --

          Juan Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          Miles Schreiner
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880


SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Action Over Homeless Arrest Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary Warth, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that
arrests of homeless people in downtown San Diego have spiked in
recent months as the city tries to fight a deadly hepatitis A
outbreak, and there's no sign things will change with the planned
opening of large tents that will shelter hundreds.

"They're going to use the tents as another reason to shoo people
from downtown," said homeless advocate Michael McConnell, who
often chronicles arrests on his Facebook page, Homeless News San
Diego.

"I just had a conversation with somebody on the tents. They said,
'When the circus tents go up, what are they going to do with us?'"
he said.

McConnell responded that he believed more people would be cleared
out.

Hepatitis A is spread through unsanitary conditions, and the
outbreak has disproportionately affected the homeless population.
More than 370 people have been hospitalized and of the 20 people
who have died, 11 were homeless.

Partly in response to the outbreak, the city has moved 200
homeless people into a temporary encampment near Balboa Park, and
it plans to open three large tents downtown and in the Midway area
that together will shelter 700.

City-hired crews also have been spraying sidewalks in some
neighborhoods with chemicals to kill the virus.

Cleaning the streets at times has meant getting homeless people to
move, one way or another.

A public records request submitted by Voice of San Diego showed
police made 270 arrests of homeless people in September for
encroachment or illegal lodging, three times the number as in
September 2016.

That same month also saw 149 citations for the two violations.

Mr. McConnell and others said they have witnessed more than a
dozen police units at times citing and arresting people on and
around 17th Street, which once had a dense stretch of homeless
tents.

Records show that officers from the downtown Central division
issued the most tickets and made the bulk of arrests for
encroachment and illegal lodging in September, but they were
assisted by officers called in from the Northern, Western,
Southeastern and Mid-City divisions.

The downtown crackdown appeared to first focus on citations and
arrests at 16th, Market and J streets and Island Avenue before
focusing on 17th Street on Sept. 14, when two people were arrested
and three citations were issued.

On Sept. 19, five people were arrested on 17th Street, and 10
people were arrested the next day. Another six were arrested Sept.
21, and 14 were arrested Sept. 23.

Among the people arrested was Lisa Shankle, a Navy veteran who
said she served in Operation Desert Storm from 1988 to 1991.

"We were just sitting there resting," she said, recalling the
night when an officer approached her while she was in a tent on a
sidewalk along Commercial Street.  "We were not doing anything. I
have a clean record, but because I have priors, I was arrested."

By priors, Ms. Shankle meant she had three prior citations for
encroachment.  Like many homeless people who are ticketed, she
didn't go to court, leading to her arrest.

Ms. Shankle said she has post-traumatic stress disorder and had an
anxiety attack while being arrested, so she was taken to a
hospital rather than jail. Now she's residing at the city's
temporary homeless camp.

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's Press Secretary Greg Block
acknowledged there has been an ongoing effort to get people off
the street during the hepatitis A outbreak.  "The focus will
remain on keeping public areas clean and preventing the unsanitary
conditions that helped fuel the outbreak from returning," he wrote
in an e-mail.

Mr. Block also wrote that police officers treat every homeless
person they encounter with respect, and each is offered a shelter
bed and supportive services.

An arrest may mean a few days in jail and a fine, but it doesn't
necessarily lead to a court case.

"The territory has changed a lot in the last year and a half,"
said Michael Ruiz, supervising attorney with the County Public
Defender's' office."  The prosecution of the homeless has changed.
The City Attorney's office is taking more of a holistic approach
by implementing certain programs."

Those programs include the Community Justice Initiative, formerly
Community Court.

Under the initiative, the City Attorney's office will offer an
opportunity to do 16 hours of community service for either the
Alpha Project or Urban Corps of San Diego County.

Mr. Ruiz said since 2016, the Alpha Project has placed 80 people
in the initiative with case managers who work with them to
overcome homelessness.

Another initiative is SMART, San Diego Misdemeanant At-Risk Track,
which provides housing for people who repeatedly are cited for
low-level infractions.

Mr.  Ruiz said fines for encroachment and illegal lodging
violations are $277, but judges usually suspend $150 of that.

While there is more of a thoughtful effort in helping the homeless
in the legal system, Mr. Ruiz said the increase in arrests has
been a problem.

"As far as the cases themselves go, yes, there has been an uptake
for encroachment violations," he said.  "We're not too happy about
it."

Mr. Ruiz said the city has been circumventing a 2007 settlement to
the Spencer vs. San Diego lawsuit.  In the settlement, the city
agreed not to ticket people on the street for illegal lodging
between 9 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. because homeless people on the street
have nowhere else to go.

Last year, police began citing homeless people for violating a
city encroachment ordinance that is not affected by the settlement
for illegal lodging, which is a state law.

McConnell and other critics of the practice said the encroachment
ordinance is being misused because it was intended to keep
businesses from blocking sidewalks with large plants and trash
cans, not to run off homeless people.

Scott Dreher, the attorney behind the Spencer lawsuit, filed a
class-action suit against the city's use of the encroachment law
in July.

His partner, attorney Kath Rogers, said her office overlooks Fault
Line Park in East Village, where many homeless people have moved
to since the crackdown at 17th Street.

"The other day the police showed up while I was there, and I saw
the enforcement take place," she said, describing a scene of
officers asking homeless people for identification and giving them
warnings.

Rogers said she asked an officer where the people should go, and
he suggested the new city-sanctioned camp site.

She called the idea ludicrous because the camp site is full, and
people aren't allowed to just show up, anyway.

"They're using the new camp site as a place where everyone is
suppose to go, and it's almost like they're using that as
justification for ramping-up enforcement," she said.

Ms. Rogers said the pending class-action suit against the city
addresses constitutional rights violations and argues the
encroachment law is not being enforced evenly.

The suit names 10 homeless plaintiffs, but since it was filed one
person has died, she said. [GN]


SHADE STORE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Shade Store 989.
The case is captioned as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Shade
Store 989, LLC and The Shade Store, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017).

The Plaintiff also filed the lawsuit, Virginia Norman, and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
The Shade Store, LLC and The Shade Store 989, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08671 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8), which was terminated
Nov. 17.

According to a docket entry dated Nov. 17 in Case No. 17-08671,
"New civil actions filed electronically that contain the following
deficiencies may be administratively closed without prejudice and
summonses may not be issued unless the deficiency is corrected
within five (5) days of electronic transmission by the Clerk of a
Notice of Deficient Filing: The case initiating document contains
the wrong document -- an illegible or unreadable document or no
document.. Where a case is administratively closed, a filing party
may move to reopen the case after any such deficiency is cured.
Administrative Reopening due by 1/16/2018. (Signed by Judge
Colleen McMahon on 3/7/2017) (laq)."

The Shade Store, LLC designs and manufactures custom window
treatments. Its products include roller shades, solar shades,
roman shades, and drapery.[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
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SMITH & KING: "Stanko" Suit Moved to District of Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rudy Butch Stanko, and similarly
situated tax payers in Sheridan county, and Nebraska Beef Packers,
Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. Brandi Bosselman, individually and in her
official capacity as an officer of Bosselman Pump & Pantry, Inc.;
Smith, King, and Simmons, P.C., now known as
King, Simmons and Conn; Jamian Simmons, Individually and in her
official capacity as a county attorny and also as a private lawyer
in officer of the Simth, King, and Simmons law firm, k/n/a King,
Simmons and Conn (KSC); Aaron Conn, individually and in his
official capacity as a deputy county attorney and as a private
lawyer in the named law firm or office; James McCave, inidivually
and in his official capacity as a deputy county attorney and as a
private lawyer in the law office or firm representing the Town of
Hay Springs, etc.; State of Nebraska, Sheridan County Attorney's
Office, Attorney General; Office of Sheridan County Commissioners;
Loren Paul, individually and in his official capacity as a
Sheridan County commissioner; Jack Anderson, individually and in
his official capacity as a Sheridan County commissioner; James
Krotz, individually and in his official capacity as a Sheridan
County commissioner; and Clay Heath, individually and in his
official capacity as a policeman for the City of Gordon, Case No.
CI-17-00053, was removed on Nov. 15, 2017 from the Sheridan County
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska (8 Omaha). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:17-cv-03151-SMB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis.

Smith, King, Simmons & Conn law firm serves citizens of Western
Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Klaus, Esq.
          Sheila A. Bentzen, Esq.
          REMBOLT, LUDTKE LAW FIRM
          1128 Lincoln Mall
          Suite 300, 3 Landmark Centre
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 475 5100
          Facsimile: (402) 475 5087
          E-mail: dklaus@remboltlawfirm.com
                  sbentzen@remboltlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Danielle L. Jones, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE-NEBRASKA
          2115 State Capitol Building
          P.O. Box 98920
          Lincoln, NE 68509-8920
          Telephone: (402) 471 2683
          Facsimile: (402) 471 4725
          E-mail: danielle.jones@nebraska.gov

               - and -

          Philip O. Cusic, Esq.
          ENGLES, KETCHAM LAW FIRM
          1700 Farnam Street, Suite 1350
          Woodmen Tower
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 348 0900
          Facsimile: (402) 348 0904
          E-mail: pcusic@ekoklaw.com


SMITH HAVEN CHRYSLER: Faces "Ulrich" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Haven
Chrysler. The case is styled as Christopher Ulrich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smith
Haven Chrysler, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06959 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 29, 2017).

Smith Haven Chrysler is a Car dealer in Nesconset, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SONY: Lithium Ion Battery Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
Rachel DePompa, writing for WWBT NBC12, reports that if you bought
electronics that use lithium ion batteries you may have some money
coming your way from a class action settlement, but time is
running out.

You have two weeks to file to get your money.

If you've ever bought a cell phone, tablet, lap top or power tool
that runs on a lithium ion battery, odds are good you could get in
on a piece of a class action lawsuit.

Several battery makers agreed to the $45 million settlement to end
a lawsuit that claimed they conspired to fix the price of those
lithium ion batteries for more than 10 years.

If you lived in the US and bought a device that used those
batteries, or bought replacement batteries between 2000 and 2011,
you can make a claim for a share of that money.

Among the devices are laptops, notebook computers, cell phones,
tablets, camcorders and cordless power tools.

Your share of the settlement will be based on how many of those
items you bought in that 10-year period.

You do not need to produce receipts to prove you bought them.

The deadline to file is Wednesday, Nov. 29.  The average payment
is unknown since that depends on how many people file claims.

Filing is easy and can be done online at
https://www.reversethecharge.com/claim-form/
[GN]


ST LOUIS, MO: Sued Over Workhouse Detainees' Inhumane Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for River Front Times, reports that
temperatures that reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, with
frigid cold in the winter.  Infestations of mice, rats, snakes,
ants and the largest roaches one inmate had ever seen -- as well
as bed bugs and brown recluse spiders. Black mold and overflowing
sewage.

Those are all part of the abjectly wretched conditions at St.
Louis' Medium Security Institution -- better known as the
Workhouse -- detailed in a new class-action lawsuit.

Filed this afternoon by ArchCity Defenders, the suit seeks to
represent everyone who's been locked up in the jail at any point
from November 2012 to the present. That's a potential class of
thousands of people, many of whom weren't convicted of a crime
prior to their stay -- 99 percent of detainees in the Workhouse
simply lack the money to post bond while awaiting trial.

The "unspeakably hellish and inhumane conditions" violate the
first, eighth and fourteenth amendments, the nonprofit law firm
alleges.  It's asking a federal judge to issue injunctive relief -
- either to shut it down or to fine the city until it ensures that
the jail complies with the rights guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution.  The suit also seeks damages to compensate the
detainees for the harm they've suffered.

Blake Strode, who was recently named the firm's new executive
director, announced the suit at a press conference this afternoon,
along with Decarcerate St. Louis and state Representative Joshua
Peters (D-St. Louis).

Nicole Nelson, a staff attorney with ArchCity, said the attorneys
met the clients named in the suit over the summer while working to
provide relief from the dangerous heat -- and heard harrowing
stories that went far beyond the facility's lack of air
conditioning.

"They felt like they were treated like dogs -- like they just
didn't matter," Ms. Nelson said.

Diedre Wortham, who was locked up in the Workhouse for two months
this summer, said, "It's terrible in there.  They've got us in
there like we're just slaves, and there's nothing we can do about
it."

Added Wortham, "If you have any type of medical problems, they'll
leave you for dead in the Workhouse. . . . I didn't think I'd make
it out of the Workhouse alive."

Vincent Grover, who was also detained in the workhouse last
summer, said the windows had no screens, so that rain fell freely
into the facility.  Mice were everywhere, with their waste all
over meal trays and even on the food.  "If you see the mice feces,
just scrape them off," he says kitchen workers were told.

Mr. Grover added, "Imagine going to shower and there's human feces
in the shower.  Who's going to get it out? You go and tell an
officer, he's going to say, 'So what?'"

In addition to the physical conditions in the aging building --
which the RFT personally witnessed in an undercover visit in
August -- the suit accuses the city of creating "an environment
that promotes violence and retaliation."

"Sometimes this violence is perpetuated by the Workhouse officers
themselves; other times, the staff merely allow violence between
the detainees as a way of 'teaching a lesson,'" the suit notes.
"Actions as minor as requesting a medical form can result in a
detainee being the recipient of anger, screaming, and cursing by
jail staff."

In the women's unit, the suit alleges, "Certain officers . . .
would allow, and even encourage, fights without intervening. These
officers would taunt the women into fighting and then decide who
'won.'"  The officers would pretend to stop the fights if a
supervisor stopped by.

The suit also claims that Workhouse staff arranged for detainees
to attack those who complained about the them -- recruiting a
detainee from one unit and placing him in the same cell as the
complaining detainee.  "The recruited detainee would then
violently attack the complaining detainee in exchange for payment
via commissary or some other reward."

Another officer earned a reputation for stopping by when the women
were in the showers and observing them, even while pretending he
wasn't watching, the suit alleges.

One detainee whose story is told in the lawsuit alleges that
staffers tried to cover up how bad conditions were when outsiders
visited.

"When the facility was set to have visitors, staff moved detainees
from the upstairs dorms to the downstairs dorms to prevent
visitors from seeing the upstairs dorms," the suit notes. "He
believes that this was done in part because the upstairs dorms
have more, and more noticeable, black mold than the rest of the
facility."

Kennard Williams of Decarcerate St. Louis said that the activists
had worked to bring the problems to the attention of the past
mayor's office, the current mayor's office and the St. Louis
Circuit Attorney's Office.

"All we've seen at this point is a game of passing the buck
between the mayor's office and the circuit attorney," said
Mr. Williams. [GN]


TERMINIX INT'L: Faces "Renteria" Suit in Central District Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terminix
International, Inc. The case is styled as Jimmy Renteria, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Terminix International, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
08602 (C.D. Cal. November 28, 2017).

Terminix International provides pest control services for homes
and businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TESLA INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. automaker
Tesla Inc on Nov. 13 was hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming
its California production plant is a "hotbed for racist behavior."

The lawsuit filed in California state court in Oakland is at least
the third filed this year by black workers who say they were
addressed using racial slurs and that the company ignored their
complaints.

But the Nov. 13 lawsuit, filed by former Tesla employee Marcus
Vaughn, is the first to bring those claims on behalf of a large
class of black workers at the automaker's Fremont, California
factory.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

The company is also facing lawsuits accusing it of discrimination
against gay and older workers. It has denied those claims.

Mr. Vaughn in the lawsuit says he was routinely called the "n-
word" by supervisors and coworkers after he began working at the
factory in April.  He says he complained in writing to human
resources officials, but the company never investigated his
claims.

Mr. Vaughn says he was fired in October for "not having a positive
attitude."  He is seeking unspecified damages under a California
anti-discrimination law.

The growing number of discrimination lawsuits against Tesla come
as the company is also facing a unionization campaign from the
United Auto Workers.

In February, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk told the website
Gizmodo that an employee who wrote a blog post criticizing the
company was "paid by the UAW to join Tesla and agitate for a
union."

The union and the worker denied that he had been paid by UAW. In
October, the union filed a complaint with a federal labor board on
behalf of scores of workers who it says were laid off because they
support the union.

The company denied the claims and said the decision was based on
employee performance reviews. [GN]



THOMAS MACKIE: Faces "Price" Suit in Western Dist. of Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas Mackie. The
case is captioned as Lawrence Price and David K. Lamb, and
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Thomas Mackie, named as T.
Mackie, Warden, individual capacity only; Unknown Benson, Officer,
individual capacity only; Unknown Lee, Officer, individual
capacity only; William Cross, Officer, individual capacity only;
Unknown Daron, Officer, individual capacity only; Unknown Baker,
Sgt., individual capacity only; Unknown O'Brain, Lt., individual
capacity only; Unknown Gaudia, Officer, individual capacity only;
and Michigan Department of Corrections, named as MDOC, in its
official capacity for injunction relief only, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00996-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., Nov. 13, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Paul L. Maloney.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


TOMY B HAIRCARE: Faces "Chamaidan" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tomy B Haircare Inc.
The case is styled as Laura Chamaidan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tomy B Haircare
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06948 (E.D. N.Y., November 29,
2017).

Tomy B. is a high-end hair style, cut & coloring salon located in
Old Westbury, Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Over Truffle-Flavored Olive Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hu and Pete Brush, writing for Law360, report that Trader
Joe's Co. has asked a New York federal court to impose sanctions
on shoppers who filed a proposed class action accusing the grocery
store of charging premium prices on truffle-flavored olive oil
containing no black truffle, claiming on Nov. 10 that the shoppers
lied about whether DNA tests proved the lack of truffles.

Trader Joe's requested a premotion conference for a motion for
sanctions on Nov. 10 upon receiving subpoenaed DNA tests that
allegedly "confirmed" the absence of black truffle.  Trader Joe's
claimed that the shoppers had pursued the lawsuit despite an
earlier email from the lab stating that absence of truffle did not
mean that the product did not contain it.

"At the time they filed, the lab had already informed plaintiffs
that the DNA testing could not determine the absence of truffle in
the sample," lawyers for Trader Joe's wrote. "Plaintiffs knew this
conclusion was unsupported but thought it would be concealed by
privilege."

The shoppers, Tyoka Brumfield and Cynthia Torocsik, filed an
amended complaint in July, alleging that DNA analysis "confirmed"
that there were no black truffles "whatsoever" in Trader Joe's
truffle oil. U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield rejected
Trader Joe's motion to dismiss, finding the allegations regarding
the test results were sufficient and Trader Joe's' concerns that
DNA testing was not a reliable method was a fact issue to be
addressed later in the litigation.

Trader Joe's said on Nov. 10 that the shoppers knew that its
representations were false and made the allegations anyway in
order to avoid dismissal of the case.

"Worse, Trader Joe's learned of these facts despite plaintiffs'
effort to conceal them," Trader Joe's lawyers wrote, adding that
the shoppers had initially refused to produce the test results,
claiming privilege, when Trader Joe's had sought to learn more
about the DNA testing.  "Trader Joe's only discovered this
document when the third-party lab produced it in response to
Trader Joe's' subpoena."

Dotta Foods LP, which was added as a defendant in September, also
asked the court on Nov. 10 to dismiss the shoppers' claims.  The
California-based supplier of the product argued that the shoppers
failed to show consumer deception and that the label stating that
it was "black truffle flavored" meant that it tasted like black
truffles, regardless of whether the source was natural or
artificial or both.

"The [p]roduct's label contains no express warranty that the
[p]roduct is "flavored by" black truffles so there is no basis for
that cause of action," lawyers for Dotta Foods wrote.

The original suit, filed in May, alleged that Trader Joe's charged
extra for the flavored oil -- $4.99 for a bottle as opposed to
$3.78 for a same-size bottle of regular extra-virgin olive oil --
but uses a synthetic chemical called 2,4-dithiapentane instead of
pricey black truffles for flavor.

A suit brought by the same plaintiffs' firm targeting olive oil
company Monini North America Inc. over its white truffle-flavored
olive oil was dismissed in August by U.S. District Judge Louis L.
Stanton. The judge held among other things that the "plaintiffs
acknowledge Monini's label accurately describes the product's
flavor" and therefore there was no breach of any warranty. The
Monini suit also alleged that the fake flavor came from 2,4-
dithiapentane.

Counsel for the shoppers did not immediately respond to request
for comment. Counsel for Trader Joe's and Dotta Foods also did not
respond.

The shoppers are represented by Joshua D. Arisohn --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA.

Trader Joe's is represented by Dawn Sestito -- dsestito@omm.com --
Raymond C. Kilgore -- ckilgore@omm.com -- and Hannah Y.S. Chanoine
-- hchanoine@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Dotta Foods is represented by Leonard F. Lesser --
llesser@simonlesser.com -- of Simon Lesser PC and Michael Hambly
and George Salmas of The Food Lawyers.

The case is Brumfield et al. v. Trader Joe's et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y.)   The case is assigned to Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.  The case was filed May 2, 2017. [GN]


TRANS CONTINENTAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Continental
Credit & Collection Corp. The case is entitled as Brendalin Lugo,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06548 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

Trans-Continental was founded in 1973. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Handy" Suit in Eastern District of NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Handy, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems
Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06932
(E.D. N.Y. November 28, 2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION PACIFIC: King Sues over Railroad Workers' Pay
---------------------------------------------------
ZENO KING, JR. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, a
Corporation, and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC683319
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 14, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a
result of Defendants' failure to issue accurate itemized wage
statements to its California railroad workers, failure to issue
accurate itemized wage statements, and for unfair business
practices in violation of California statutory laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to provide
Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements
during the Class Period caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to
incur economic damages in that they did not receive all regular,
overtime, and prevailing wages owed, and they were unable to
determine from their itemized wage statements whether they had
been paid all wages owed.[BN]

The Union Pacific Railroad is a freight hauling railroad that
operates 8,500 locomotives over 32,100 route-miles in 23 states
west of Chicago and New Orleans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Zev Abramson, Esq.
          Jack J. Gindi, Esq.
          Nissim Levin, Esq.
          ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
          3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 493 6300
          Facsimile: (213) 382 4083
          E-mail: NISSIM@ABRAMSONLABOR.COM


UNITED COLLECTION: "Korchagina" Suit Filed in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Polina Korchagina, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06538 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, and financial service).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Ruling May Result in Black Farmers' Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa DeLancey, writing for Covington Leader, reports that
the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc.,
headquartered in Memphis, with over 15,000 members, received a
landmark decision on Oct. 31 from the U. S. District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals that could result in one of the largest
Civil Rights settlement in U. S. History.

A press conference was held on Monday, Nov. 6, with more than 100
members of the BFAA in attendance, along with elected officials,
community leaders and the heirs of Earnest Boyland.

The court's decision centers around BFAA and the estate of Earnest
L. Boyland, a black farmer who owned 100 acres of farmland in
Mason.  He died in 2010 at the age of 90 and was reportedly
discriminated against based on his race when he was denied the
right to fill out an application with the United States Department
of Agriculture in Somerville.  His estate and BFAA were the
appellants against the government and its contracting claim's
agent, Epiq, in a class action lawsuit.  The court denied the
government's motion to dismiss the case.

The courts ruling could result in the payout of $1.8 billion in
settlements.

"No citizen of these United States will ever again be subjected or
denied opportunity," said Thomas Burrell, president of the Black
Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc.  "We are going to
urge President Trump to affirm the ruling and not block the black
farmers' claims."

Bishop David A. Hall, a pastor and avid farmer, encouraged those
attendance to keep the faith.

"You are the cream of the crop farmers who have endured and your
patience will be rewarded," Bishop Hall added. [GN]


UNIVERSAL CITY: Manrique and Lewis Sue over Car Loans
-----------------------------------------------------
Philippe Manrique and Dennis Lewis, on behalf of themselves as
Individuals and all others similarly aggrieved by Defendants'
conduct as alleged, the Plaintiffs, v. Universal City Nissan, Inc.
d/b/a Universal Nissan; Sage Downtown, Inc., d/b/a Sage Downtown
Corp. dba Kia of Downtown Los Angeles; Glendale Nissan/Infiniti,
Inc. d/b/a Glendale Infiniti and Glendale Nissan; Valencia Holding
Co., LLC d/b/a Mercedes-Benz) of Valencia; West Covina Auto Group,
LLC, dba West Covina Toyota, and West Covina Toyota/Scion; West )
Sec. 1760 et seq. (Lewis) Covina Nissan, LLC; Covina MJL, LLC)
d/b/a Sage Covina Chevrolet; Sage North Hollywood, LLC d/b/a Sage
Preowned; Sage Vermont, LLC d/b/a Sage Hyundai; Sage Holding
Company Inc. and Sage Management Company Joseph Schrage and
Michael Schrage and DOES 1-400, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC683573 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
wrongfully withheld charges and seeks payment of restitution and
damages for wrongfully delaying payments to lenders and
lienholders by defendants on behalf of California consumers in
violations of California's motor vehicle statutes and the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

This action alleges the illegal/improper actions of defendants in
purchasing used automobiles from consumers with the
promise/representation that the existing lien balance to third
party lien holders and/or lessors would be paid off, either as
part of a trade-in or a purchase transaction at various new and
used car dealerships owned and/or operated by defendants.

The Defendants sell or sold motor vehicles to consumers through a
series of dealerships located in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Simons, Esq.
          LA W OFFICE OF STEVEN A. SIMONS
          P.O. Box 33623
          Granada Hills, CA 91394
          9010 Corbin Ave. Ste. 17B
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 368 9642
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5032
          E-mail: simonslaw@verizon.net



USA MEDICAL: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Medical of
Bensonhurst LLC. The case is titled as Virginia Norman, and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
USA Medical of Bensonhurst LLC; USA Medical of Manhattan LLC; and
USA Medical of New York LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08710 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).[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
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


VERIZON NEW JERSEY: Struzynski Sues over Use of Set-Top Box
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICH AND LESLIE STRUZYNSKI, 903 DENSTON ROAD WEST DEPTFORD, NJ
08086-3831, AND RACHEL Wurx, 270 CRESTMONT TERRACE COLLINGSWOOD,
NJ 08108-1304, INDNIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS, v. VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC. 1 VERIZON
WAY BASKING RIDGE, NJ 07920 AND VERIZON ONLINE LLC 1 VERIZONWAY
BASKING RIDGE, NJ 07920, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. CAM-L-004449-17
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2017), seeks all available relief from
Verizon's ongoing course of conduct pursuant to the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, and New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act.

Verizon has misrepresented -- and continues to misrepresent -- to
its New Jersey customers that they must lease a separate, Verizon-
supplied "set-top box" ("STB"), "digital adapter," and or
"CableCARD device" for each and every television that will be used
to access Verizon FiOS programming within the same household.

Despite Verizon's flagrant misrepresentations regarding its
equipment rental program, a multitude of "technical equipment
alternatives" ("TEAs")' are readily available that permit Verizon
customers to enjoy FiOS on multiple televisions within the same
household without the claimed "necessity" of leasing multiple
pieces of proprietary equipment from Verizon. Verizon's onerous
(and lucrative) rental policies not only misrepresent, conflict
with, and impermissibly obscure the true accessibility of
Verizon's FiOS programming, but are directly belied by Verizon's
own public submissions to the U.S. Congress including signed
testimonies by Executive Vice-President & General Counsel Craig L.
Silliman and Verizon Executive Director Leora Hochstein) and, upon
information and belief, via various other communications,
misrepresentations, and omissions made by Verizon and its agents
and employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anapol Weiss, Esq.
          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq.
          ONE LOGAN SQUARE
          130 N. 18m Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790 4550
          Facsimile: (215) 875 7733
          E-mail: DSENOFF@NAPOLWEISS.COM
                  HWEINSTEIN@ANAPOLWEISS.COM


VERMONT MUTUAL: "Davila" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carmen Davila, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vermont
Mutual Group, the Defendant, Case No. SUCV2017-03204-BLS1, was
removed on Nov. 15, 2017 from the Suffolk County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-12266
to the proceeding.

Chartered in 1828, the Vermont Mutual Insurance Company is one of
the 10 oldest mutual property/casualty insurers in the United
States. They have operated continuously since that time in
Montpelier, VT. Along with the wholly owned subsidiary, Northern
Security Insurance Company, Inc. and the affiliated Granite Mutual
Insurance Company, the Vermont Mutual Insurance Group provides
coverage throughout New England and New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Beresen, Esq.
          MANELIS & BERESEN
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 875 3833
          E-mail: eberesen@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP
          273 State Street, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455 1730
          Facsimile: (413) 455 1594
          E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael S. Batson, Esq.
          HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING
          265 Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 728 0050
          Facsimile: (617) 728 0052
          E-mail: mbatson@hermesnetburn.com


VICTIM SERVICES: Fights Check Restitution Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Victim Services, a
California company fighting a proposed class action over its bad
check restitution program, has asked a federal court to force the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to turn over records that
could prove many potential class members have already been
compensated.

In a petition filed on Nov. 10 in Washington D.C. federal court,
lawyers for Victim Services at Lee & McShane and Freedman &
Taitelman said the CFPB has "inexplicably" failed to produce a
single document since a subpoena was served on it in October last
year. [GN]


VINTNERS DISTRIBUTORS: Yap Seeks OT Wages under California Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ERNESTO V. YAP, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
VINTNERS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17882547 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2017), seeks to recover regular and/or
overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and 20 breaks in
violation of California law.

According to the complaint, Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from
approximately September 2015 to approximately October 2015, in the
State of California. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other
class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. Defendants had the
authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class
members to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiff's and
the other class members' employment, and to supervise their daily
employment activities. The Defendants exercised sufficient
authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's and the
other class members' employment for them to be joint employers of
Plaintiff and the other class members.

Vintners Distributors operates fueling stations in Northern and
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Raja" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Afsar Raja, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06540
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017).

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Vital Solutions, Inc., Vital Recovery
Services, LLC is a fully licensed, national, third-party
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL: Schwanke Sues over Unsolicited Faxes
------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE, DC, d/b/a BACK TO BASICS FAMILY
CHIROPRACTIC, a Florida resident, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, LTD f/k/a
PHYSICIANS' HEALTH & DIET PROGRAM, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-02694-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover
statutory damages for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, trebling of the statutory damages if the Court determines
Defendant's violations were knowing or willful, injunctive relief,
compensation and attorney fees, and all other relief the Court
deems appropriate under the circumstances.

The Defendant has sent advertisements by facsimile in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227, and
the regulations the Federal Communications Commission. The
Defendant sent Plaintiff at least one advertisement by facsimile
and in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not expressly
consent to receive Defendant's advertisements by fax. Moreover,
does not have an established business relationship with Defendant.
The Defendant's conferences serve as a pretext for promoting the
commercial availability and quality of Defendant's products and
services; specifically, its nutritional supplements, Omega-3 fish
oil, CoQ 10, and weight management products and services. The
Defendant's unsolicited faxes damaged Plaintiff and the other
class members. Unsolicited faxes tie up the telephone lines,
prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent
their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear
on the recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to
attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited
message. The recipient of a "junk" fax loses the use of its fax
machine, and many lose their paper and ink toner in printing the
fax. Such an unsolicited fax interrupts the recipient's privacy. A
junk fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would have been
spent on something else.

The Defendant is a for-profit multi-level marketing company that
markets and sells Physicians' Health & Diet Program nutritional
supplements and weight loss products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Walton" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co L.P.A. The case is captioned as Jazzmin Walton, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co L.P.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06516-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.

Weltman & Weinberg provides collection services and legal
representation to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669 0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669 5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


WEST CALCASIEU: Double-Billing Class Action Status Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
David Hutton, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Louisiana 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal panel has upheld a lower
court's ruling certifying a case against West Calcasieu Cameron
Hospital and other defendants as a class-action lawsuit.

The panel included Judges John D. Saunders, Billy Howard Ezell and
Phyllis M. Keaty, who wrote the order.

Other defendants in the case were United Health Care Insurance
Co., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and R.J. Moss
Enterprises Inc.

Aaron Emig and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging
violations of the Balance Billing Act.  After the 14th Judicial
District Court in Calcasieu Parish certified the matter as a class
action, the defendants appealed.

In 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court had ruled that class action
was a preferred method to handle cases that included controversies
overbilling and liens.

Mr. Emigh filed a complaint for damages against WCCH, alleging the
hospital declined to file a claim with his insurance company after
he had received treatment at the facility.  WCCH had retained a
third-party agency to collect the payment from Emigh, which Mr.
Emigh claims was an attempt at double billing.

In the wake of the filing, additional plaintiffs were added as
putative class representatives.

In its appeal, WCCH alleges that the trial court was wrong when it
found the plaintiffs met the standards for maintaining a class
action.  It also asserted that the trial court erred when it ruled
the plaintiffs could maintain the class action while seeking
damages for mental anguish and mental stress. The court also
adopted the class definition proposed by plaintiffs, another
misstep according to WCHH's legal team.

Ms. Keaty wrote that a trial court has a wide discretion in
deciding whether class-action status is warranted and any effort
to overturn such a decision must include myriad facts.

Moreover, WCCH and the other appellants maintained that the class-
action definition proposed falls short because it could include
members who suffered no damages.

"We reject this argument as this court and the Supreme Court have
clearly stated that a court should not look to the merits when
determining class certification," Ms. Keaty wrote.

Ms. Keaty also noted that class-action status is always under
scrutiny and faces constant modification and the potential for
decertification. As a result, it is important to err in favor of
maintaining the status, she noted.

The panel upheld the trial court ruling certifying the complaint
and a class action and assessed court costs to the defendants.
[GN]


WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action Over Life Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Morrissey, writing for The Queensland Times, reports that
Westpac Banking Corporation is being sued for allegedly
overcharging its life insurance customers, in a claim that could
total $100 million according to Shine Lawyers.

The class action, filed by Shine Lawyers in the Federal Court of
Australia, will allege that the bank took advantage of customers
through referrals to Westpac financial planners, who routinely
signed customers up for more expensive Westpac life insurance
products.

Ipswich man Greg Lenthall is the lead plaintiff for the case and
has accused the bank of over charging him about $300 per year on
several life insurance policies from Westpac Life, three for
himself and one for his wife Sharmila.

BT Financial Group (a Westpac Banking subsidiary) has said it will
be fighting the allegations.

BT Chief Executive Brad Cooper said it was wrong to make direct
comparisons between policies due to different service levels and
underwriting processes which both flow into pricing.

"BT's principle is to make insurance as affordable as possible for
as many people as possible and we think that is the right thing to
do for our customers," Mr Cooper said.

"Through our Financial Planners we accept customers who may have
conditions such as high cholesterol or blood pressure and who
would otherwise find themselves with a higher premium if they
tried to purchase it through an independent adviser.

"As a result some customers will pay substantially less, and
others will pay a little bit more, but that is how insurance
works.

"Our approach makes the benefit of Life insurance available to
more of our customers at a reasonable price".

However Mr Lenthall, a former chef, said he would have been
charged around 4.5% less for his policies from Westpac Life if he
went through an independent financial planner instead of through a
Westpac financial planner back in 2011.

"This was just a quick cash grab from customers," he said. "Rather
than setting us up for the future and looking after our interests,
they just saw us as dollar signs.  I wasn't a customer, I was just
a dollar sign to them.

"It's not about the money, it's about trust and the fact that we
had faith that they were acting in our interests.  All the while,
they were abusing this trust to boost their profit.

"We want to see the bank held accountable for its actions and for
taking advantage of its customers.  It's the little people like me
that allow companies like this to exist and they need to stop
treating us with such disdain."

Shine Lawyers class actions special counsel Jan Saddler says
customers were charged 4.5% more for the Westpac life insurance
packages than they would have been charged if they obtained the
same insurance elsewhere.

"We believe that Westpac took advantage of its relationships with
customers to boost its bottom line, by signing clients up to their
own in-house insurance which they knew was more expensive," she
said.

Ms Saddler said the overcharges, paid since 2010, could impact
tens of thousands of customers.

The action, she said, would seek to return millions of dollars in
overpaid premiums to impacted customers, as well as any interest
or profits made from investments.

Mr Lenthal, 57, said Westpac should be held to account for bad
behaviour.

"To know that they put such a large mark up on their products for
customers is absurd and a huge betrayal.  We feel cheated and
duped and we expected so much more," he said.

"While the individual amounts of money might not sound like much,
over time it adds up to quite a lot of money.  A few hundred
dollars a year can make a world of difference, particularly for
families already trying to manage multiple competing expenses."

Mr Cooper said it was BT's principle to make insurance as
affordable as possible for as many people as possible.

"We stand by our life insurance product which is consistently
among the highest rated in the market and we have a great track
record of paying claims.

"Our commitment is to make sure our customers have the best
possible cover and service at the most sustainable price," he
said.

Customers who received financial advice and obtained life
insurance from a Westpac financial planner since 2010 may be
entitled to join the action and recover compensation if they:

   1. received financial advice from a financial advisor of
Westpac, BT, St George Bank, Bank of Melbourne or BankSA; and

   2. obtained a life insurance policy from Westpac, BT, St George
Bank, Bank of Melbourne or BankSA as a result of that advice.

Westpac customers who believe they may have been impacted can
contact Shine Lawyers on 13 11 99 or email wpac@shine.com.au. [GN]


XI'AN FAMOUS: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xi'an Famous Foods,
Inc. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Xi'an Famous Foods, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08817
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2017).

Xi'an Famous Foods is a small chain of restaurants located in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* CFPB's Repealed Arbitration Rule Driven by Trial Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Fein, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
Congress deserves applause for repealing an obtuse rule
prohibiting agreements requiring arbitration to resolve consumer
finance disputes issued by the Consumer Protection Finance Board
(CPFB).  The rule's chief beneficiaries were trial lawyers, not
bank customers.

On the other hand, the Oct. 25 repeal highlights the chronic
irresponsibility of Congress in delegating its legislative powers
to executive agencies.  The repeal would have been unnecessary if
Congress had exercised rather than given away its authority over
consumer finance.

On July 19, 2017, the CFPB issued a rule prohibiting mandatory
arbitration provisions in consumer financial services contracts
that would preclude their participation in class action lawsuits
to resolve disputes.  Congress delegated authority to the CFPB in
the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
to prohibit "unjust, deceptive, or abusive" practices.
The lamp of experience should guide political footsteps.

Thousands of years of experience fortified by Adam Smith's Wealth
of Nations confirm that consumer welfare is optimized by open
markets in which business rivals compete for patrons.  That
presumption should only be overcome if the government unearths
credible evidence of collusion among competitors or monopoly
power.

The CFPB argued that mandatory arbitration provisions were unfair
because customers have no choice.  But they do.  Only 7 percent of
community banks use them, and only 50 percent of credit card
issuers do.

If consumers strongly desire a class action option to resolve
disputes, they can patronize financial institutions accordingly.
The CFPB adduced no evidence that financial institutions had
agreed among themselves to insist on mandatory arbitration for
consumers.  To do so would be a criminal violation of the Sherman
Act.  If consumers seriously dislike mandatory arbitration,
financial institutions will abandon them to secure a competitive
advantage.

Consumers are not irrational in agreeing to them.  Dispute
resolution is but one among numerous equally if not more important
terms or conditions in consumer finance contracts. Consumers may
prefer lower interest rates or more forgiving loan repayment terms
over class actions to resolve disputes.
The class action option was vastly oversold as a consumer benefit.

A 2009 study by Searle Civil Justice Institute found that
consumers are more likely to receive relief via arbitration than
in class actions. The CFPB's own study showed 87 percent of class
actions yielded no relief to plaintiffs. Of the 251 class actions
it reviewed, the average payment to a class member was a paltry
$32.35.

In contrast, the average payment to the plaintiff's lawyers
exceeded $1 million per case.  Forbes' Daniel Fisher reported,
based on researchers at Mayer Brown law firm and 2009 federal
class actions, that in five of six cases where settlement
distribution data was publicly available the percentage of class
members who received money ranged a high of 12 percent to a low of
0.000006 percent.

In other words, the probability of a class action consumer
plaintiff receiving a non-trivial monetary award is as miniscule
as hitting the jackpot at Las Vegas.  No one plans their life
around such a contingency.

The CFPB's repealed rule was driven by trial lawyers, not bank
customers.  Their concealed motto was "Millions for us, but
nickels and times for our clients." There is nothing new under the
sun.  That's why Shakespeare's Jack Cade in Henry VI, Part 2
exulted, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
[GN]


* Companies Becoming Targets of Data Hacking Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Moretti, writing for WIVB, reports that what are the chances
of your personal data being hacked?

"It's very high. It's probably already out there somewhere," said
Arun Vishwanath, University at Buffalo professor and cyber
security expert.

Consider this: In 2016, the New York State Attorney General's
received 1,300 data breach notifications which represents a 60
percent increase over the previous year.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is now proposing legislation
that's designed to comprehensively protect the personal
information of New Yorkers.

"It's clear that New York's data security laws are weak and
outdated, "Schneiderman said in a statement.  "The SHIELD Act
would help ensure these hacks never happen in the first place."

Look no further than the Equifax breach in which hackers gained
access to the credit reporting agency's data, and potentially
compromised the personal information of as many as 145 million
American consumers.

"This is social security information.  This is your financial
history," Mr. Vishwanath said.  "This is the worst-case scenario.
They got it all and we don't even know who they are."

"Equifax infuriates me," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.  "They
have an extra obligation to protect it, and they didn't.  They
were hacked several times and they didn't."

Data breaches are a serious threat that's been exploding over the
years.

Breaches exposed about 23 million personal records of New Yorkers
between 2006 and 2013, according to a report by Mr. Schneiderman's
office.

Over the same time, data breach reports tripled, with hacking
attacks making up over 40 percent of those breaches.

"Everybody is at risk," said William Palisano, president of
Lincoln Archives, a data security company in Buffalo.

And if you think this only happens to big companies.

"A lot of people think that just because they're not a big company
they're not on the radar.  That's absolutely false,"
Mr. Palisano said.

Mr. Palisano says the best defense for businesses and
organizations is having a good backup system.

"You have to be very proactive and really understand where your
risks are. And then secondly, plan on a strategy to secure those
risks," he said.

Arun Vishwanath says companies big and small should not skimp on
data security.

"We got to take this very seriously.  Today, an I-T breach can
destroy a company.  It's no longer just a support function that we
just add on. But it's actually an essential function that we got
to take seriously," said Mr. Vishwanath.

"I don't care who you are.  What size company you are, and where
you're located, presume you're being attacked," he added.

With data hacks on the rise, companies are increasingly becoming
targets of class-action litigation.

Maryland-based CareFirst is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to
review a case that stems from a 2014 data breach that potentially
exposed 1.1 million patient records.

This follows a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that gave customers
the right to pursue a class-action lawsuit against CareFirst.

"This is a new frontier.  Not just a new legal frontier.  It's a
new frontier for companies and how they handle the privacy of
their business.  How they handle the security of what they take in
the digital age," said News 4 Legal Analyst Terry Connors.  "It's
important, and it is something that has come to the attention of a
lot of companies by virtue of litigation which is a terrible way
to encounter this problem."

Connors says right now there's no federal standard that companies
can follow, and that the whole concept of cyber security is
relatively new to the legal field.

He says there's been a split on federal rulings when it comes
whether data breach victims have standing to go forward with a
class-action case.

Referring to the CareFirst case, Connors said, "The appeal to the
Supreme Court will be, we need to resolve this dilemma.  What
exactly is standing, and what constitutes standing in this type of
a case."

"It's evolving as you can see from the fact that there are
differences of opinion among the various circuits.  That's
something that's going to have to be ultimately decided by the
United States Supreme Court," Connors added.

Data breaches can be especially tough on the bottom-line of small
businesses, according to Reggie Dejean, director of Specialty
Insurance at Lawley Insurance in Buffalo.

"You just don't know what's at stake," said Mr. Dejean.

He says the cost of dealing with a breach can quickly add up, even
before a lawsuit is settled.

"You can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars for the credit
monitoring, the notification costs, the public relations. All
those costs that a small business can incur that may put them out
of business," Mr. Dejean said.

There's even insurance for this sort of thing - privacy liability,
designed to protect a company in the event of a data breach.

Generally speaking, Mr. Dejean says for about $1,000 a year, small
businesses and nonprofits can get up to a million dollars of
coverage.

"You think about a small business.  A million, two million, three
million of revenue or less.  When you start looking at the credit
monitoring, the legal costs, the forensic, you can easily be in
the $200,000 range," Mr. Dejean said.  "How many businesses doing
a million dollars revenue a year.  How many businesses can afford,
bottom-line $200,000? They can't."

Now more than ever, businesses and organizations should be asking
these questions, according to the experts.

   * What information are you handling?
   * Where is it located?
   * Who has access to it?
   * What protections are in place?
   * What kind of training do employees receive?
   * What's your plan if a breach happens?

Arun Vishwanath thinks there needs to be some sort of mandate that
enforces cyber security discipline in companies that handle
personal information.

For example, he cites the need to conduct regular checks for
technical and human vulnerabilities.

"Presume the worst is better, and protect yourself by presuming
the worst. That's the strategy. That's the world we live in. If
you look at the data out there, you can see that there are hacks
happening as we speak. The next big hack has probably already
happened," Mr. Vishwanath said.

Under Attorney General Schneiderman's proposed legislation,
companies would have a legal responsibility to adopt "reasonable"
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for sensitive
data.

Bill Palisano of Lincoln Archives says companies that are well-
prepared are proactively having systems and processes in place to
get ready for an attack.

"Those companies are more or less easier to recover.  Companies
that are not prepared, it might be impossible to recover them,"
Mr. Palisano said. [GN]


* Law Professor Calls for Centrist Approach to Arbitration Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Krings, writing for KU News Service, reports that after a
hard-fought political battle so close that an evenly divided U.S.
Senate required the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Mike
Pence, President Donald Trump recently signed the repeal of a
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would have
prevented banks from using arbitration agreements to insulate
themselves from class-action lawsuits.  This news shows the
enduring divisiveness of class actions -- in which a lawyer
combines claims of many consumers -- and the spillover effects on
arbitration, said University of Kansas law professor and
arbitration expert Stephen Ware.  His forthcoming article in the
Harvard Negotiation Law Review argues for a centrist approach to
arbitration law that would remove arbitration from what he calls
the "class-action battlefield."

"Powerful interest groups fighting about class actions is the
longstanding norm," Ware said, "but newer is the centrality of
that fight to debates about arbitration law."

The CFPB studied consumer arbitration for years and could have
greatly restricted it but instead chose to issue a rule that would
significantly affect only one aspect of it: class actions.

Arbitration's connection to class actions grew in 2011 when the
Supreme Court's conservative majority approved arbitration
agreements requiring disputes to be resolved individually, rather
than as part of a class, even though similar "class waivers" in
nonarbitration agreements were rarely enforced.  The CFPB rule --
issued by a bureau directed by a Democrat -- would have ended
enforcement of arbitration agreements' class waivers had it not
been overridden by the Republican Congress and president.

The predictably partisan pattern of Republicans and business
groups opposing class actions, while Democrats and progressive
groups support them, increasingly extends to arbitration debates,
according to Ware's research.  In contrast, his centrist position
on arbitration would not take sides on whether to enforce arbitral
class waivers but instead would instruct courts to enforce
arbitral class waivers only when they would enforce a class waiver
in a similar nonarbitration contract.  This would allow courts in
different states to have different standards about when to enforce
class waivers and would allow such standards to evolve over time
as views about class actions develop.  Most beneficially for
arbitration law, Mr. Ware believes, this approach would allow
arbitration law to stop choosing sides in the long interest group
fight over class actions, as arbitration law would simply adopt
whatever approach other areas of law take to class waivers.

More broadly, Mr. Ware's article in the Harvard Negotiation Law
Review is the third in a trilogy arguing for a centrist approach
to consumer arbitration law, in contrast with both current
conservative arbitration law and progressive proposals to prohibit
consumer arbitration agreements entirely.

"The law has been dealing for generations with a variety of
provisions on consumers' form contracts," Mr. Ware said.  "Few
people want courts always to enforce all the words on these forms,
and few people want courts never to enforce any of those words.
Most people want the law to keep finding a happy medium."

Courts presumptively enforce most terms on consumer contracts in
most cases but sometimes find a particular provision
"unconscionable," or overly harsh, and thus unenforceable.  Also,
state and federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade
Commission and CFPB sometimes prohibit contract terms harsh to
consumers.

"The CFPB apparently decided an agreement to arbitrate is not
necessarily harsh to consumers," Mr. Ware said.  "And for good
reason.  The Bureau is receptive to the standard economic argument
that arbitration agreements tend to lower businesses' costs and
some of these savings are passed through to consumers in the form
of lower prices.  In addition, the most relevant empirical
evidence does not show consumers faring worse in arbitration of
one-on-one disputes than they do in litigation of such disputes."

The better-documented disparity between arbitration and
litigation, Ware said, is the potential for a class action.
The University of Kansas is a major comprehensive research and
teaching university.  The university's mission is to lift students
and society by educating leaders, building healthy communities and
making discoveries that change the world.  The KU News Service is
the central public relations office for the Lawrence campus. [GN]


* PSC Chairman to Help Draft Privacy Class Action Legislation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Perez, writing for The Sun Herald, reports that the phone
rings and although the display shows it's a local number, the
caller is someone named Heather again, and you hang up before
finding out what she's selling.

Or a caller asks for Linda, and when you tell them they have the
wrong number, they go on to ask you for money.

More than half of consumers responded to a survey by
FirstOrion.com that they've had a scam call on their cell phone in
October.  The company says there are about 80 million of these
unwanted calls every year.

There is a way to fight these telemarketers, said Brandon Presley,
chairman of the Public Service Commission, who recently introduced
members of the Gulfport Rotary Club to the new "MS No-Call" app.
It's free, downloads in less than a minute from the Apple Store
for iPhone users or Google Play for Android cell phones and lets
users register their phone number on the Do Not Call list.

The app is the first of its kind from any state in the country, he
said.

Presley asked how many people had received a call from a
telemarketer and nearly every hand in the room at Great Southern
Club was raised.  When asked how many had reported those calls,
only a few hands went up.

He said the app makes it easy to report the phone number
immediately, so there's a better chance of cracking down on
telemarketers.

"This free app was a long time coming, and I know it will
revolutionize the way we track down the lawbreakers and shut their
call operations down," he said.

WHAT'S BEING DONE
Mr. Presley, whose grandfather was a brother of Elvis Presley's
grandfather, said he was sitting on his porch in northern
Mississippi when he got one of those annoying calls.

That's when he had the idea for an app, which was paid for with
fines collected by the state from the offending telemarketers and
with fees from companies who are registered in the state.

He's not stopping there, Mr. Presley said.  He's working to help
draft legislation that will allow class-action suits in
Mississippi against companies that allow these invasions of
privacy.

While the state can issue a fine, "The person who is called is the
victim," he said.

He's also working with a strike force to solve the problem from a
technology standpoint, and said technology is being developed that
will let consumers know when they pick up their phone whether a
call is originating from a verified phone number.

SPOOFING
The telemarketers keep changing their tactics.  Now the phone
number that comes up on the caller ID will display a local number,
often with the same area code and prefix as the cell phone user's.

"That is caller ID spoofing," Mr. Presley said.  "That is a
technology that people are using, obviously illegally, to alter
the caller ID, so it will pique the interest of the person getting
called."  The consumer thinks it is a local number, he said, so
they answer the call.

"Almost all of them are originating outside the United States," he
said.  Some of them pop up with "United States" in the caller ID.

"I've had over 10 calls today," said one person who responded on
the Sun Herald Facebook page.  "I don't even live there but I have
a MS number. They have even used my number to call people."

Another said, "The other day, I got a call from my own number.
Don't know how they did that."

Mr. Presley admits, "It's a continual fight."

HOW DOES IT STOP?
The Federal Communications Commission says "spoofing" occurs when
a caller deliberately falsifies the information transmitted to a
caller ID display on a person's phone to disguise their identity.

Spoofing is often an attempt to trick a person into giving away
valuable information such as social security numbers, mother's
maiden named or passwords used for fraudulent activity or sold
illegally according to the FCC. The spoofers may masquerade as
representatives of banks, creditors, insurance companies or the
government, the agency said.

Attorney General Jim Hood said in a press release that Mississippi
joined other states in 2010 to enact the Caller ID Anti-Spoofing
Act to regulate caller ID spoofing.  But the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals found that the scammers had a first amendment right to
spoof phone numbers and upheld the legality of "non-harmful
spoofing" in 2012 when it overturned the state law.

Verizon says it stops many robocalls before they get to their
customers and provides information on telemarketing and robocalls
on its website.  "We monitor our networks to detect spikes in
suspicious calls, and then work with law enforcement and with
other telephone companies to shut down illegal robocallers," the
company says.

The FCC is going after the companies.  In August the agency
proposed an $82 million fine against Best Insurance Contracts,
doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes, and its owner,
Philip Roesel of North Carolina, who is believed to have made more
than 21 million of illegally spoofed robocalls to consumers around
the country.  The FCC said the calls displayed inaccurate caller
ID when making robocalls in an effort to sell health insurance,
"which especially targeted vulnerable consumers, including the
elderly, the infirm and low-income families."

This came after the FCC in June proposed a $120 million fine
against Adrian Abramovich of Miami, Florida, who the agency says
apparently made 96 million spoofed robocalls over three months.
These calls prompted people to "Press 1" to hear about exclusive
vacation deals from well-known hotels and hospitality companies.

Consumers who did press the button were then transferred to
foreign call centers, according to the FCC, where live operators
attempted to sell vacation packages, often involving timeshares,
which were not affiliated with the companies in the recorded
message. The FCC said the fine was based on 80,000 calls it was
able to verify through consumer complaints.

For more information about Mississippi's No Call Law, visit
www.psc.state.ms.us or call 1-800-637-7722. [GN]


* Trump Funding Linked to Oil Sector Class Action Legal Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Goodman, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that a
Democratic mega-donor who is campaigning to impeach Donald Trump
was linked to early efforts in a class action legal campaign
against the oil industry, according to documents obtained by
DailyMail.com.

Tom Steyer, a California billionaire hedge fund manager and
environmental activist who is also rumored as a primary challenger
to Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, has denied involvement in
state-level efforts to bring class action lawsuits against oil
companies.

But records obtained by DailyMail.com show that two principals in
Mr. Steyer's non-profit group NextGen were briefed in 2015 on the
secret strategy behind the legal campaign, which has launched
lawsuits against the oil industry in multiple states and cities.

NextGen Chief Operation Officer Dan Lashof and the group's
attorney David Weiskopf received a confidential March 9, 2015 memo
outlining the legal strategy.

The memo, obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com, was sent by the
organizer behind the legal campaign, activist attorney Matt Pawa.

The memo is marked 'privileged and confidential,' and indicates
that Mr. Steyer's organization NextGen was closely involved in
early strategy discussions.

Since 2016, Oakland, San Francisco and New York have all pursued
lawsuits against major oil companies related to greenhouse gas
production.

In September, San Francisco announced it would sue oil giants BP,
Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Shell.

The announcement came several months after Mr. Steyer, a major
political donor, contributed $30,000 to the mayor of San Francisco
Ed Lee late last year.

The San Francisco lawsuit -- which is modeled on prior class
action campaigns against the Tobacco and asbestos industries --
would require the oil companies to pay for infrastructure projects
that San Francisco claims it needs to ease the impacts of climate
change.

That lawsuit tracks closely with a legal strategy sent from Pawa
to the attorneys working for Mr. Steyer in 2015.

The memo 'summarizes a potential legal case against major fossil
fuel corporations for their contributions to California's injuries
from global warming.'

It proposes class action suits against oil companies based on
California's 'public nuisance' laws.  The proposal said it would
seek to hold oil companies responsible for rising sea levels
resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

It says the corporations should be asked to pay for 'massive
infrastructure changes' that California would need to deal with
the water level changes.

This is the same strategy used in San Francisco's lawsuit filed in
September. The city attorney was also joined by Pawa during the
press conference announcing the lawsuit.

The San Francisco suit claims BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon
and Shell have 'contributed to the creation of a public nuisance
in San Francisco, and the San Francisco City Attorney has the
right and authority to seek an abatement of that nuisance on
behalf of the People of the State of California.'

It demands that the companies set up an 'abatement fund' that
would 'provide for infrastructure in San Francisco necessary for
the People to adapt to global warming impacts such as sea level
rise.'

The 2015 strategy memo acknowledges that judges would be reluctant
to impose joint liability on oil companies for greenhouse gas
emissions.

It notes that even the "largest contributor to Global Warming' --
which it claims is Chevron -- "is responsible for just 5 percent
of the global greenhouse gas emissions.'

"Judges naturally will shy away from imposing joint and several
liability for large monetary damages on defendants that are
responsible for single digit percentages of the harm," said the
memo.

But the memo argues that climate change activists would not have
to actually win the lawsuit in order to damage the oil industry.

It claimed that "simply proceeding to the discovery phase of a
global warming case" -- during which the oil corporations would be
required to turn over internal documents -- "would be significant"
for activists.

"Industry has withheld for years documents regarding their
involvement in a campaign of deception and denial," said the memo.

"Just obtaining such documents gave the Tobacco litigation an
unstoppable momentum, here to obtaining industry documents would
be a remarkable achievement that would advance the case and the
cause."

NextGen declined to comment on the memo or say whether Mr. Steyer
has discussed the lawsuit with officials in San Francisco.  But
the group seemed to distance itself from the San Francisco
campaign even as it said it hopes the effort is successful.

"Corporate polluters have put their profits ahead of Americans"
health and safety, causing long-term damage to the Bay Area and
its residents," said a NextGen spokesperson.

"While NextGen America has not been involved in the current
lawsuit, we were proud to help hold corporate polluters
accountable for their destructive actions."

Mr. Steyer also did not respond to request for comment.
Mr. Steyer faced questions last year about whether he was
connected to a similar legal challenge against the oil industry
filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

In September 2016, the New York Post obtained an email showing
that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was trying to set
up a phone call with Mr. Steyer to discuss political contributions
to a 'governor' race in the context of the state's oil industry
lawsuit.

"Eric Schneiderman would like to have a call with Tom regarding
support for his race for governor . . . regarding Exxon case,"
said the email, which was sent by Mr. Steyer's lawyer to his
scheduler.

The email raised questions about whether Mr. Schneiderman had
plans to run for New York governor in 2018 -- and whether his
decision to take on Big Oil was connected to political donations.

After the email was published, Mr. Steyer denied any involvement
in the oil industry lawsuit, telling Politico he was 'definitely
not pushing this thing' and was 'not a part of this effort.'

Mr. Schneiderman denied that the email indicated that he was
interested in running for governor.

After the Post story, a watchdog group submitted a public
information request for emails between Mr. Steyer's office and Mr.
Schneiderman's office.

Although public records logs indicate there were multiple
conversations between the two camps in 2015, Mr. Schneiderman's
office has not released the emails, citing 'law enforcement'
exemptions to public records laws.

Mr. Steyer, who is worth $1.61 billion and founded the hedge fund
Farallon Capital, was the single largest political donor in
America during the 2016 election.

He contributed a total of $66.3 million during the cycle, making
him the largest donor to the Democratic Party.  He is also behind
a public campaign to impeach President Trump, pouring $10 million
into ads for the effort.

The "Need to Impeach" campaign has been collecting signatures on a
petition calling for the president's impeachment.

Mr. Steyer claimed it has been signed by 1.9 million people so
far. The campaign has stoked a public feud between Steyer and
Trump, with the president calling the environmental activist
'wacky' and 'unhinged.'

"Wacky & totally unhinged Tom Steyer, who has been fighting me and
my Make America Great Again agenda from beginning, never wins
elections!" wrote Trump on Twitter on October 27.

The billionaire hedge fund manager has a long history of
environmental philanthropy. He was one of the main backers behind
the campaign to stop the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline
in 2014, and funds an array of environmental causes through his
advocacy group NextGen America.

Mr. Steyer recently sparked rumors that he might run for the
senate seat currently held by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein
of California.

He took a swipe at Feinstein in October, a few months after the
84-year-old said people should have 'patience' with Trump and give
him a chance.

Feinstein announced that she would run for a fifth senate term in
October.  The next day, Mr. Steyer sent a letter to the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee declaring that 'this is not a
time for "patience" and demanding steps to impeach Trump.

"Donald Trump is not fit for office," wrote Mr. Steyer.  "It is
clear for all to see that there is zero reason to believe he can
be a good president.'

An unnamed associate of Mr. Steyer's also told the Sacramento Bee
that the billionaire is 'seriously' considering a run for the
senate seat. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,400 Claims at Sept 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. still defends itself against 1,400 asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure
to asbestos.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company sold its insulation
business unit at the end of April 1958.  The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 1,400 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2016,
approximately 88% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 9% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, US$15
million or less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than US$15 million but less than or equal to US$100
million.

"Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages.  The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a
complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or
disposition value.  Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is
determined by such factors as the type and severity of the
plaintiff's asbestos disease, the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents, the product
identification evidence against the Company and other co-
defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other co-
defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made,
and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant.

"In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-
handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and
negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under
the criteria established by such agreements.  The criteria for
such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by
the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period
ending in 1958.

"The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, the Company believes that these
categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material
liability and they are not included in the pending matters or in
the disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
September 30, 2017, has disposed of asbestos claims of
approximately 399,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately US$9,500.  The
Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim
basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over
time.  Asbestos-related cash payments for 2016, 2015 and 2014 were
US$125 million, US$138 million, and US$148 million, respectively.
The Company's cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal
costs) were approximately US$71,000, US$95,000, and US$81,000 for
the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.
Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure
criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling
agreements has generally reduced the number of claims that would
otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system.
In addition, certain court orders and legislative acts have
reduced or eliminated the number of claims that the Company
otherwise would have received by the Company in the tort system.
These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

"Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of
approximately US$4.9 billion through September 30, 2017, before
insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability.  The
Company's estimates of its liability have been significantly
affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-
related litigation in the United States, the significant number of
co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the inherent
uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns
against the Company, the significant expansion of the defendants
that are now sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes
in the extent to which these defendants participate in the
resolution of cases in which the Company is also a defendant.

"The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables
likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos
claims against the Company.  The material components of the
Company's total accrued liability are determined by the Company in
connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist
of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such
liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated:
(i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the
Company; (ii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted
against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated
to be incurred in connection with the claims already asserted and
those claims the Company believes will be asserted.

"The Company conducts a comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  As part of its annual comprehensive legal review,
the Company provides historical claims filing data to a third
party with expertise in determining the impact of disease
incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop
information to assist the Company in estimating the total number
of future claims to be filed.  The Company uses this estimate of
total future claims, along with an estimation of disposition costs
and related legal costs as inputs to develop its best estimate of
total probable liability.  If the results of the annual
comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount of
the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably
estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an
appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations
to increase (decrease) the accrued liability.

"The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   (a) settlements will continue to be limited almost exclusively
to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   (b) claims will continue to be resolved primarily under the
Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable
to those set forth in those agreements;

   (c) the incidence of serious asbestos-related disease cases and
claiming patterns against the Company for such cases do not change
materially;

   (d) the Company is substantially able to defend itself
successfully at trial and on appeal;

   (e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
bankruptcies do not change significantly the assets available to
participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is a
defendant; and

   f) co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue
to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos
lawsuits and claims.

"For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company
concluded that accruals in the amount of US$692 million and US$817
million, respectively, were required.  These amounts have not been
discounted for the time value of money.  The Company's
comprehensive legal reviews resulted in charges of US$0 million,
US$16 million and US$46 million for the years ending December 31,
2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"The Company believes it is reasonably possible that it will incur
a loss for its asbestos-related liabilities in excess of the
amount currently recognized, which is US$692 million as of
December 31, 2016.  The Company estimates that reasonably possible
losses could be as high as US$825 million.  This estimate of
additional reasonably possible loss reflects a legal judgment
about the number and cost of potential future claims and legal
costs.  The Company believes this estimate is consistent with the
level of variability it has experienced when comparing actual
results to recent near-term projections.  However, it is also
possible that the ultimate asbestos-related liability could be
above this estimate.

"The Company expects a significant majority of the total number of
claims to be received in the next ten years.  This timeframe
appropriately reflects the mortality of current and expected
claimants in light of the Company's sale of its insulation
business unit in 1958.

"The Company's asbestos-related liability is based on a projection
of new claims that will eventually be filed against the Company
and the estimated average disposition cost of these claims and
related legal costs.  Changes in the significant assumptions have
the potential to impact these key factors, which are critical to
the estimation of the Company's asbestos-related liability
significantly."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5xtI6t


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017 that over 80 percent of
the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or
unspecified disease claims.

The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in
state and federal courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large
number of other companies have also been named as defendants.  The
vast majority of those claims have been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.  Neither
Ingersoll-Rand Company nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.

"The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related liability.  The methodology
used to project the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon
and included the following factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma
and lung cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
disease claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
claims, by type of disease claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

"At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, over 80 percent of
the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or
unspecified disease claims, many of which have been placed on
inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have
little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in
light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of
such claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $587MM Liabilities at Sep.30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of US$587.4 million as of September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company's asbestos insurance receivable
related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane was US$127.4 million
and US$129.7 million at September 30, 2017, respectively, and
US$129.6 million and US$142.9 million at December 31, 2016,
respectively.

"The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance
recoveries as of September 30, 2017 is entirely supported by
settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance
carriers.  Most of these settlement agreements constitute
"coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories
agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for
asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-
handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain
releases and indemnifications.

"In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims.  The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of Ingersoll-
Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs.  The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.  Since filing the
actions, Ingersoll-Rand Company has settled with approximately
two-thirds of the insurer defendants, and has dismissed one of the
actions in its entirety.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies.  The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable
of recovery because of the following factors:

   * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its
recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlements;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.

"Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated disclosed in its the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the amount
of "reasonably possible" additional asbestos claims, if any, "is
not material to" its financial position and operations.

The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due
to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle
manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the
mid-1980s.  In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may
also seek punitive damages.  Generally, the Company has obtained
dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no
material effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows.  The Company maintains insurance coverage that
applies to the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements
or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.  At
this time, the amount of reasonably possible additional asbestos
claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or operating cash flows, although
these matters could result in the Company being subject to
monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings
in particular periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6vdRo6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
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 September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Like other companies in recent years, the
Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and
in the past may have been integrated into or sold with a very
limited number of the Company's products.  The Company is
vigorously defending itself against these claims.  Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the
Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations, either from a cash flow
perspective or on the financial statements as a whole.  This
belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or
substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products
manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases
have been voluntarily dismissed."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's current portion of asbestos-related
liability as of September 30, 2017 was US$8 million (US$7 million
in 2016), according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos.  We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims.  This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs.  The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments.  Approximately 19% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 81% related to
unasserted claims at September 30, 2017.

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at September 30, 2017, and
December 31, 2016.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable.  The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts.
However, future events, such as the number of new claims filed
each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage
issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to
be higher or lower than the projected amounts.  Estimates also may
vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of
asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws
governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability
or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material
changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other
defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Knt4Zl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $35MM PCC Liability at Sep. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated has US$35 million current liability related
to asbestos matters under the reorganization plan of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation (PCC), according to Corning's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
("PCC").  PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the
Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan")
became effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2016, this estimated liability was US$290
million, due to the Company's contribution, in the second quarter
of 2016, of its equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning
Europe N.V. ("PCE") in the total amount of US$238 million, as
required by the Plan.  A payment for US$70 million was made in
June 2017.

"At September 30, 2017, the total amount of payments due in years
2018 through 2022 is US$220 million.  A US$35 million payment is
due in the second quarter of 2018 and is classified as a current
liability.  The remaining US$185 million is classified as a non-
current liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/US7bJo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $148MM Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded a reserve of US$148 million as of
September 30, 2017 for asbestos claims that are unrelated to
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"), according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

Corning owned 50% of the capital stock of PCC, which filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the Modified Third Amended
Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became effective in
April 2016.

The Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation
of the Plan.  The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016.  Corning
previously established a US$150 million reserve for these non-PCC
asbestos claims.  The estimated reserve represents the
undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the
next 20 years.  The amount may need to be adjusted in future
periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any lesser or greater liabilities at this time.  At
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the amount of the
reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims was US$148 million and
US$149 million, respectively.

"Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies related to Corning's asbestos
claims.  Corning has resolved these issues with a majority of its
relevant insurers, and is vigorously contesting these cases with
the remaining relevant insurers.  Management is unable to predict
the outcome of the litigation with these remaining insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/US7bJo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation still defends itself against lawsuits
regarding asbestos-related injuries, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We or our subsidiaries have been named in a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.
To date, neither we nor our subsidiaries have been found liable or
paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case.  We
believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations
and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our
products makes it unlikely that we will face material liability in
any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.
We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and
believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated
asbestos liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Sep. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2017, that based on information currently available,
it does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending
asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on
its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by
the Company and/or the named subsidiary.  A substantial majority
of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or
other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.
The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to
the Company, either individually or in the aggregate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0cYsyS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or accompanying
its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims.  The claims in our current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits
that named us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits either were
dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to
the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for
immaterial amounts.

"As of September 30, 2017, we are subject to the claims, as well
as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen
in the ordinary course of business.  Although the outcome of the
lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are or
may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do
not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the
aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ucYlf0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend
itself against various lawsuits on asbestos-related injuries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

Quaker Chemical states, "The Company previously disclosed in its
Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2016 that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired
in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

"During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, there have been
no significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this
matter previously disclosed, aside from on-going claims and
routine payments associated with this litigation.

"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$2.2 million (excluding costs of
defense)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6JevLt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 600 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 600 pending asbestos-related personal
injury cases as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2017, the Company was a
party to 600 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,265 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) allegedly manufactured or distributed by certain of
its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining
and exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.  The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought.  The large majority of claims do not specify
the amount sought.

"Of the 5,265 claims pending at September 30, 2017, 54 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum).  At September 30, 2017, of the 54
claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims
seeking specific amounts for punitive damages.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately US$8.4 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.

"Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses.  Nonetheless, the Company
believes it is likely there will be a period within the next 12
months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement
and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance
coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had US$1.3-Bil. Reserve at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. had net reserve of
US$1,253 million for asbestos-related liabilities at September 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Reserves for asbestos and environmental are
primarily within P&C Other Operations with less significant
amounts of asbestos and environmental reserves included within
Commercial Lines and Personal Lines reporting segments
(collectively "Ongoing Operations").  The following tables include
all asbestos and environmental reserves, including reserves in P&C
Other Operations and Ongoing Operations.

"The Company classifies its asbestos and environmental reserves
into two categories: Direct and Assumed Reinsurance.

   * Direct Insurance -- includes primary and excess coverage.  Of
the two categories of claims, direct policies tend to have the
greatest factual development from which to estimate the Company's
exposures.

   * Assumed Reinsurance -- includes both "treaty" reinsurance
(covering broad categories of claims or blocks of business) and
"facultative" reinsurance (covering specific risks or individual
policies of primary or excess insurance companies).  Assumed
Reinsurance exposures are less predictable than direct insurance
exposures because the Company does not generally receive notice of
a reinsurance claim until the underlying direct insurance claim is
mature.  This causes a delay in the receipt of information at the
reinsurer level and adds to the uncertainty of estimating related
reserves."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,383 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had 9,383 asbestos-related claims pending as of
September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "It is probable that additional asbestos-
related claims will be asserted against the Company in the future.
The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and has
obtained the dismissal of the majority of the claims asserted
against it without any payment.  The Company likewise expects that
no payment will be made by the Company or its insurers in the vast
majority of current and future asbestos-related claims in which it
has been or will be named (or has an obligation to indemnify a
party which has been or will be named).

"Through September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had
accrued and paid US$518.6 million and US$477.7 million,
respectively, in indemnity (including settlement payments) and
defense costs in connection with asbestos-related claims.  These
gross payments are before tax benefits and any insurance receipts.
Indemnity and defense costs are incorporated into the Company's
operating cash flows and will continue to be in the future.

"The Company reviews, on an ongoing basis, its own experience in
handling asbestos-related claims and trends affecting asbestos-
related claims in the U.S. tort system generally, for the purposes
of assessing the value of pending asbestos-related claims and the
number and value of those that may be asserted in the future, as
well as potential recoveries from the Company's insurers with
respect to such claims and defense costs.  During the fourth
quarter of 2016, the Company determined that a reasonable estimate
of its liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted could be
made, and the Company increased its aggregate estimated liability
for asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted to US$879.3
million as of December 31, 2016.  The Company's estimate is not
discounted to present value and includes an estimate of liability
for potential future claims not yet asserted through December 31,
2059 with a runoff through 2067.  The Company currently believes
that December 31, 2067 is a reasonable assumption as to the last
date on which it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims, based on the nature and useful life of the Company's
products and the likelihood of incidence of asbestos-related
disease in the U.S. population generally."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/76Tbfl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $838.3MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. recorded US$838.3 million liability for asbestos-
related claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.  The
amount is the Company's best estimate of the aggregate liability
for both asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted, including
estimated defense costs.

BorgWarner states, "The Company's estimate of its aggregate
liability for asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved and potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted
was developed with the assistance of a third-party consultant.  In
developing such estimate, the third-party consultant projected a
potential number of future claims based on the Company's
historical claim filings and patterns and compared that to
anticipated levels of unique plaintiff asbestos-related claims
asserted in the U.S. tort system against all defendants.  The
consultant also utilized assumptions based on the Company's
historical proportion of claims resolved without payment,
historical settlement costs for those claims that result in a
payment, and historical defense costs.  The liabilities were then
estimated by multiplying the pending and projected future claim
filings by projected payments rates and average settlement amounts
and then adding an estimate for defense costs.

"The Company's estimate of the indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential claims not yet asserted is its reasonable best estimate
of such costs.  Such estimate is subject to numerous
uncertainties.  These include future legislative or judicial
changes affecting the U.S. tort system, bankruptcy proceedings
involving one or more co-defendants, the impact and timing of
payments from bankruptcy trusts that presently exist and those
that may exist in the future, disease emergence and associated
claim filings, the impact of future settlements or significant
judgments, changes in the medical condition of claimants, changes
in the treatment of asbestos-related disease, and any changes in
settlement or defense strategies.  The balances recorded for
asbestos-related claims are based on best available information
and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable,
including as to the number of future claims that may be asserted,
the percentage of claims that may result in a payment, the average
cost to resolve such claims, and potential defense costs.  The
Company concluded that it is reasonably possible that it may incur
additional losses through 2067 for asbestos-related claims, in
addition to amounts recorded, of up to approximately US$100.0
million as of September 30, 2017.  The various assumptions
utilized in arriving at the Company's estimate may also change
over time, and the Company's actual liability for asbestos-related
claims asserted but not yet resolved and those not yet asserted
may be higher or lower than the Company's estimate as a result of
such changes.

"The Company has certain insurance coverage applicable to
asbestos-related claims.  Prior to June 2004, the settlement and
defense costs associated with all asbestos-related claims were
paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a
series of interim funding arrangements.  In June 2004, primary
layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged
exhaustion of their policy limits.  A declaratory judgment action
was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies
against the Company and certain of its historical general
liability insurers.  The Cook County court has issued a number of
interim rulings and discovery is continuing in this proceeding.
The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against all
carriers that are parties to it, as well as pursuing settlement
discussions with its carriers where appropriate.  The Company has
entered into settlement agreements with certain of its insurance
carriers, resolving such insurance carriers' coverage disputes
through the carriers' agreement to pay specified amounts to the
Company, either immediately or over a specified period.  Through
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had received
US$270.0 million in cash and notes from insurers on account of
indemnity and defense costs respecting asbestos-related claims.

"The Company continues to have additional excess insurance
coverage available for potential future asbestos-related claims.
The Company also reviews the amount of its unresolved, unexhausted
excess insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims, taking into
account the remaining limits of such coverage, the number and
amount of claims from co-insured parties, the ongoing litigation
against the Company's insurers, potential remaining recoveries
from insolvent insurers, the impact of previous insurance
settlements, and coverage available from solvent insurers not
party to the coverage litigation.  Based on that review, the
Company has estimated that as of September 30, 2017 and December
31, 2016 that it has US$386.4 million in aggregate insurance
coverage available with respect to asbestos-related claims already
satisfied by the Company but not yet reimbursed by the insurers,
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved, and
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted, in each case together
with their associated defense costs.  In each case, such amounts
are expected to be fully recovered.  However, the resolution of
the insurance coverage litigation, and the number and amount of
claims on our insurance from co-insured parties, may increase or
decrease the amount of such insurance coverage available to the
Company as compared to the Company's estimate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/76Tbfl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $349.0MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$349 million as
of September 30, 2017 for its estimated total liability to resolve
all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims
through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "... [L]ike many other industrial companies,
we and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of
our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers,
have contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in
the aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$349 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of September 30, 2017.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred).  In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$121 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September
30, 2017.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the
number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes
or resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of
each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom
we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues
with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet
achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our
insurance carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future
liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal
rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the
passage of state or federal legislation.  At least annually, the
Company evaluates all of these factors and, with input from an
outside actuarial expert, makes any necessary adjustments to both
our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 1, 2017 that asbestos-related product liability
claims continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries:
Spence Engineering Company, Inc.  ("Spence"), the stock of which
we acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998.

The Company states, "Due to the nature of the products supplied by
these entities, the markets they serve and our historical
experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that these
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AwZ5NW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.) had 55,500
pending claims related to asbestos matters as of September 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.  ("Crown
Cork") is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.
Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S.
company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown
Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has
no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more
for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina,
South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iC0qtZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $327.0MM Accrual at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had accrual
of US$327 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs as of September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to
claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.  However,
Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as
of September 30, 2017.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$327
million, including US$270 million for unasserted claims.  The
Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific
time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2016), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iC0qtZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Utica & Fireman Motions In Limine
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company filed an action on July
29, 2009, against Defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. One
breach of contract claim, and two counterclaims for knowing or
reckless misrepresentation or concealment and negligent
misrepresentation or nondisclosure, remain.

Utica insured Goulds Pumps Inc. on the primary and umbrella
levels, and Fireman's Fund reinsured Utica. Fireman's Fund also
reinsured that reinsurance themselves. Following claims in the
late 1990s for bodily injury due to asbestos in Goulds Pumps,
litigation ensued in California and New York to determine the
rights of Goulds Pumps and its insurers, including Utica. Goulds
Pumps and Utica settled in February 2007 for $325 million.

In July 2008, Utica provided notice to Fireman's Fund of the
Goulds Pumps loss and submitted a reinsurance claim under the
seven certificates. As of July 2009, Fireman's Fund had not paid
the claims and Utica initiated this suit. The parties have moved
in limine for various pre-trial rulings. Oral argument was held on
November 2, 2017 and a pre-trial conference followed.

Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York entered a Memorandum-Decision and Order on
the pending motions in limine, as follows:

Utica moves to preclude certain testimony of Garrett Redmond.
Redmond was employed by Fireman's Fund from 1957 through 1975.
Specifically, Utica seeks to preclude Redmond from offering
testimony at trial on the following two propositions:

     (1) that Utica misrepresented or omitted facts to Fireman's
Fund in 1966 through 1972 respecting whether the primary policies
it issued to Goulds for those policy years had aggregate limits,
and

     (2) that the primary policies Utica issued to Goulds during
that time period did not have aggregate limits. It is undisputed
that Redmond lacks personal knowledge as to the specific
propositions and therefore he cannot testify as to those matters
as a fact witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 602.

The Court points out that due to the length of time that has
passed since these policies were issued, there are no witnesses
who were personally involved with negotiating or writing the
policies. As a result, both sides will attempt to offer
circumstantial evidence and testimony regarding the usual
practices at that time in order to support their positions on the
existence of aggregate limits.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to preclude
Redmond's testimony will be granted to the extent he will be
prohibited from testifying that Utica did in fact make
misrepresentations to Fireman's Fund in obtaining the reinsurance
policies and that the primary policies in question did in fact
lack aggregate limits. His testimony on other grounds will be
admitted subject to the laying of a proper foundation and
resolution of the pending objections to his deposition
designations.

The Defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company's omnibus motion in
limine to preclude five specific matters:

   (a) Fireman's Fund argues that Utica should be precluded from
making the argument that because Fireman's Fund was a direct
insurer of Goulds under other policies, it had constructive notice
of Utica's reinsurance claims prior to 2008. While the law in New
York requires actual notice and not constructive notice, any facts
showing that Fireman's Fund had prior knowledge of the Goulds loss
are relevant to Fireman's Fund's claimed prejudice (caused by
Utica's late notice). Therefore, the Court denies Fireman's Fund's
motion to preclude this evidence.

   (b) The Court grants Fireman's Fund's motion to preclude Utica
from introducing judicial decisions involving other insurer's
challenges to Utica's aggregate limit position. The Court holds
that matters such as Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and
Surety Co., No. B255439, 2016 WL 3564244 (Cal. Ct. App. June 22,
2016) (unpublished decision) and Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v.
Clearwater Insurance Co., No. 613-CV-1178, 2016 W L 254770,
(N.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2016) (Sharpe, S.J.) are irrelevant and
inadmissible in this case. As explained in the February 2017
Memorandum-Decision and Order, those cases involve different years
of coverage, with different policies, between different parties,
and no extrinsic evidence was offered. As such, pursuant to the
"follow the fortunes doctrine," Utica's aggregate limit position
in a factually distinct matter does not dictate whether Fireman's
Fund is obligated to pay in this case.

   (c) The Court also grants Fireman's Fund motion to preclude
evidence of its own settlements and litigation with third parties.
Fireman's Fund put Utica's proof of loss at issue by arguing that
the proof of loss Utica tendered was insufficient to pay. However,
the Court notes that what Fireman's Fund deemed sufficient proof
of loss in a wholly unrelated matter, under what can only be
assumed to be different policies, coverage, and terms, is
irrelevant to what constituted adequate proof of loss under the
certificates in this case.

   (d) The Court denies Fireman's Fund's motion to preclude Dennis
Connolly's reliance on or reference to Brian E. Gagan's testimony.
Gagan is a former insurance executive who offered expert testimony
in two California cases. Gagan was retained by Fireman's Fund in
those matters and at a certain time, rendered an opinion now
unfavorable to Fireman's Fund. Gagan is not a designated expert in
this case, but Utica seeks to allow its own expert Connolly, to
refer to the Gagan excerpts to bolster its Connolly's present
opinion. The Court opines that while it may be somewhat
prejudicial to introduce this evidence, Gagan's opinion will be
admissible as an admission of a party opponent if Utica can
satisfy the requirements of FRE 801(d)(2). The Court points out
that Gagan is not testifying himself, he was retained by Fireman's
Fund and his opinion will be admitted for the limited purpose of
Connolly's opinion.

   (e) Fireman's Fund moves to preclude Utica's expert Andrew
Maneval on the basis that he is not permitted to render an opinion
on a legal standard and further, that the standard he articulates
is wrong. Maneval is designated as an insurance expert to provide
his opinion regarding when Utica was obligated to provide notice
to Fireman's Fund of the Goulds loss. Maneval will opine that
pursuant to the applicable notice provision in the certificates, a
ceding insurer (Utica) must make a subjective determination when
it appears likely that there will be a loss involving the
reinsurance. The Court states that interpreting the notice
provision in a contract is a task reserved for the court. However,
information known to Utica is relevant to when a reasonably
diligent insurance company in Utica's position would have thought
itself required to provide notice to Fireman's Fund under the
certificates. Accordingly, the Court denies Fireman's Fund's
motion to preclude Maneval's testimony.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company's
omnibus motion in limine to preclude fourteen specific matters,
particularly as follows:

   (a) Utica moves to preclude evidence regarding its own disputes
with other reinsurers. Utica contends this includes reliance by
Fireman's Fund's expert Robert Hall on such disputes. For the
reasons previously explained, the Court maintains that Utica's
disputes with other reinsurers under different facts are
irrelevant and inadmissible.

   (b) The Court denies Utica's motion to preclude evidence of
notice to other reinsurers but subject to Fireman's Fund
establishing that Utica did in fact provide blanket notice of the
Goulds Pumps loss to all reinsurers other than Fireman's Fund and
General Reinsurance Corporation. It is generally true that when
other reinsurers received notice, it has no bearing on when notice
was due to Fireman's Fund because different reinsurers have
different contracts with different notice provisions and
participate on different years and/or different levels of
coverage. However, Fireman's Fund contends that Utica did not give
notice to other reinsurers at different times based on different
coverage and instead provided notice to all reinsurers in 2001
(except for General Reinsurance Corporation which received notice
years earlier). Further, information known to Utica and relayed to
other reinsurers regarding the Goulds Pumps loss is relevant as to
when a reasonably diligent insurance company would have thought
itself required to provide notice to Fireman's Fund under the
certificates.

   (c) Because the issue of whether Utica acted reasonably in its
settlement with Goulds Pumps is key to Fireman's Fund's obligation
under the follow the settlement doctrine, the Court says that the
full spectrum of settlement negotiations between Goulds Pumps and
Utica after December 14, 2005 will be admissible. Pursuant to the
follow the settlement doctrine, Utica argues that anything after
that date is inadmissible because the only issue is whether Utica
acted reasonably on that date when it settled on the basis that
the primary policies had aggregate limits. Fireman's Fund has
offered evidence to dispute Utica's assertion that the issue was
actually settled in 2005 and instead contends that the terms
continued to be negotiated through the date the Settlement
Agreement was finalized in February 2007.

   (d) The Court rules that Fireman's Fund is free to cross-
examine Ronald Robinson, Esq. of Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP
-- that law firm was Utica's California counsel in the coverage
litigation -- as to his opinion on Utica's aggregate limits
position. However, evidence regarding the reasons Utica parted
ways with the law firm will not be permitted.

   (e) The Court precludes Fireman's Fund from introducing
evidence of a fee dispute between Utica and Berkes Crane Robinson
& Seal LLP. The dispute in this case primarily relates to the
reasonableness of Utica's actions in negotiating the Settlement
Agreement, and any fee dispute with its lawyer in the underlying
coverage action has no bearing on the instant issues.

   (f) The Court precludes Fireman's Fund from offering evidence
of disputes between Utica and Goulds after the February 2007
Settlement Agreement was memorialized. Fireman's Fund argues
evidence of errors in the Settlement Agreement and post-settlement
disputes are relevant to the prejudice it suffered as a result of
Utica's late notice. Discovery did not include the claim that had
Fireman's Fund received earlier notice and participated in the
Utica-Goulds settlement negotiations, they could have prevented
errors in the Settlement Agreement and avoided subsequent
disputes. Therefore, evidence of those disputes is irrelevant.

   (g) Utica moves to preclude admission of the Herbert Clough,
Inc. underwriting files, arguing that they cannot be properly
authenticated and are hearsay. During the time at issue, Clough
served as Utica's agent in placing its reinsurance with Fireman's
Fund. The Court rules, however, that the files will be admissible
at trial subject to the laying of a proper foundation and
Fireman's Fund establishing that they fit within a hearsay
exception, such as the exception for ancient documents under FRE
803(16).

   (h) Utica seeks to preclude Fireman's Fund from introducing a
letter from Clough to Fireman's Fund, dated April 8, 1968.
Fireman's Fund intends to introduce the letter to support its
counterclaims (for rescission) that Utica misrepresented whether
the primary policies had aggregate limits. Utica contends the
letter is part of the allegedly inadmissible Clough broker files.
Further, Utica contends that it is unsigned and there is no
evidence it was ever sent. The Court concludes that Utica's
arguments go to the letter's weight and credibility, not its
admissibility. As such, the Court maintains that the letter will
be admissible subject to the laying of a proper foundation and
Fireman's Fund establishing that the letter fits within a hearsay
exception.

   (i) The Court precludes Fireman's Fund from introducing four
commutation agreements which it did not produce in discovery. The
best evidence rule, FRE 1002, provides that an original writing is
required in order to prove its content. None of the exceptions
delineated in FRE 1004 apply. While Fireman's Fund argues that the
only relevant fact in the four unproduced agreements is the actual
commutation price of each (which can allegedly be established by
ample, reliable secondary evidence), the Court explains that it
would violate the best evidence rule to permit something other
than the original documents to establish that information.
Further, the Court maintains that it would be unfair to Utica to
permit the introduction of the prices without an opportunity to
review the underlying documents which gave rise to those prices.

   (j) The Court allows Fireman's Fund former employee, Rahul
Mehta, to testify based on his employment and experience as to
Fireman's Fund's standard practices and policies regarding
commutations. Like Redmond, Mehta cannot offer an expert opinion
based on facts beyond his personal knowledge. He may testify as a
hybrid fact/expert witness as to the commutations he was
personally involved in from 2000 on, and may opine on Fireman's
Fund's lost commutations and resulting prejudice for those years
in which he has personal knowledge. However, he cannot testify as
an expert as to commutations he was not personally involved in
because he is designated as a hybrid witness.

   (k) Under FRE 704, an opinion is not objectionable just because
it embraces an ultimate issue. The basic approach to opinions, lay
and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. To
the extent that a proper foundation is laid and Robert Hall is
qualified as an expert, the Court says that Hall's expert opinions
on these issues will be admissible, subject to the usual
guidelines of expert testimony. However, Hall will not be
permitted to testify as to legal matters or based on speculation.

   (l) Just as Utica will be permitted to introduce evidence that
it was standard policy and practice both at Utica and industry
wide to include aggregate limits for bodily injury claims, the
Court permits Fireman's Fund to attempt to discredit that
assertion by questioning John Griffin on what he testified were
errors made by Utica. Griffin was previously Utica's Head of
Underwriting. Fireman's Fund intends to introduce evidence
demonstrating that Utica's standard policies and practices -- that
is, that aggregate limits were always written in -- were not
followed during the time period in question.

   (m) The Court partially grants Utica's request to prevent
Fireman's Fund from introducing evidence which would characterize
Utica's aggregate limit position to mediators as a lie, but only
as to the characterization of that conduct as a lie. Part of
Fireman's Fund's argument that Utica violated its duty of utmost
good faith pursuant to the certificates is its allegation that
Utica made misrepresentations, regarding the aggregate limits, to
mediators and judges during the Utica-Goulds settlement
negotiations. However, the Court notes that characterization of
that position as a "lie" would have an inflammatory effect and
would be more prejudicial than probative.

   (n) Utica sought to preclude Fireman's Fund from casting this
suit as a "David and Goliath" dispute against a large and wealthy
corporation based on Utica's affiliation with Berkshire Hathaway
and Warren Buffet. The Court precludes Fireman's Fund from
evidence as to Utica's relationship with Berkshire Hathaway and
Warren Buffet and all reference to same will be prohibited
including during jury selection.

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 6:09-CV-853,
(N.D. N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/ye8c7w from Leagle.com.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Syed S.
Ahmad, Esq. -- sahmad@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Walter
J. Andrews, Esq. -- wandrews@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel R. Thies, Esq. -- dthies@sidley.com --
Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice, Patrick M. McDermott, Esq.
-- pmcdermott@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP, pro hac vice,
Thomas D. Cunningham, Esq. -- tcunningham@sidley.com -- Sidley,
Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice & William M. Sneed, Esq. --
wsneed@sidley.com -- Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
B. Williams, Esq. -- jbwilliams@williamslopatto.com -- Williams,
Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice, Mary A. Lopatto, Esq. --
malopatto@williamslopatto.com -- Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro
hac vice & Fara N. Kitton, Esq. -- fnkitton@williamslopatto.com --
Williams, Lopatto Law Firm.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary
A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Walter J. Andrews, Hunton &
Williams, LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton &
Williams, LLP, pro hac vice.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary
A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Walter J. Andrews, Hunton &
Williams, LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton &
Williams, LLP, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Master Industries Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina dismisses the claims of James Nathan
Rhodes against Master Industries, Inc., and Master Industries
Worldwide, LLC, for lack of personal jurisdiction

James Nathan Rhodes was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about
April 2, 2013, and died on October 20, 2013. According to the
Complaint, Mr. Rhodes "contracted an incurable asbestos cancer...
as a result of breathing asbestos dust." Mr. Rhodes "worked full
days as a boiler room, turbine room and powerhouse mechanic and...
was exposed to asbestos beginning in approximately 1966."

In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that "Mr. Rhodes was an avid
bowler" who "bowled regularly in Kannapolis, North Carolina,
Salisbury, North Carolina and Rock Hill, South Carolina," from the
1990's through 2013. The Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Rhodes
"regularly and frequently" used Easy Slide, a product manufactured
by the Master Defendants, which he applied to the sole of his
bowling shoe "to allow him to slide on the approach to throwing
the ball to the pins." According to the Plaintiff, Easy Slide "was
a talc- or powder-based product that also contained substantial
amounts of carcinogenic asbestos fibers."

Master Industries, founded in 1969 and dissolved effective
November 15, 2012, was a California corporation, with its
principal place of business in California. The company
"manufactured and distributed various bowling products and
accessories," including Easy Slide.

Effective January 1, 2012, Master Worldwide, "a separate, distinct
and wholly unrelated entity" from Master Industries, "purchased
the assets, but not the liabilities, of Master Industries."
Master Worldwide is a "Utah limited liability company which was
formed... on June 29, 2011." Like Master Industries, Master
Worldwide "manufactures and distributes bowling products and
accessories." One of the product lines purchased from Master
Industries... [was] the 'Easy Slide' product."

The Plaintiff argues generally that the Court has specific
jurisdiction over the Master Defendants. More specifically, the
Plaintiff argues, among other things, that based on the stream of
commerce theory, the Master Defendants purposefully availed
themselves of the privilege of conducting business in North
Carolina by selling their product to distributors that it knew or
should have known would distribute the product into the state of
North Carolina.

According to Plaintiff, the Master Defendants "knew North Carolina
bowlers used [their] products and should have expected that if a
bowler claimed to be injured from using one of those products,
they could be sued here."

In addition, the Plaintiff argues that Master Industries'
connections to North Carolina through its website and marketing
efforts were sufficient to support personal jurisdiction. Thus,
the Court must individually assess each Defendant's contacts with
North Carolina, focusing on whether each "has expressly aimed or
directed its conduct toward the forum state," such that
constitutional fairness would require that defendant to defend an
action in North Carolina.

Although the evidence reveals that Master Industries had some
contacts with North Carolina, the Court finds those contacts to be
minimal and isolated, rather than purposefully directed to North
Carolina. The Court says that such contacts are not sufficient to
support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Master
Industries. It is undisputed that Master Industries maintained no
offices, facilities, employees, mailing addresses, telephone
listings, bank accounts, or real or personal property in North
Carolina. Nor was Master Industries ever registered to conduct
business in the state.

Master Worldwide is a Utah company which purchased the assets of
Master Industries on January 1, 2012. The company has two
locations -- a principal office located in Utah and a production
facility located in California. Master Worldwide is not registered
to do business in North Carolina, and has no offices, facilities,
employees, or property in the state.

Despite the Plaintiff's contention that Master Worldwide
"continued to use the same distributor list" as Master Industries,
the Court finds that the evidence shows that, unlike Master
Industries, Master Worldwide does not have a North Carolina
distributor.

Although, as the Plaintiff argues, Master Worldwide's products are
currently available for purchase through its website, this
functionality became available in 2014. During the period between
January 1, 2012 (the date of Master Worldwide's asset purchase)
through October 30, 2013 (the date of Mr. Rhodes' death), Master
Worldwide's website was passive, rather than interactive, in that
it provided only product and company information to the general
public, but did not accept online orders.

While Master Worldwide continues to display Easy Slide in its
product catalog and sell the product to its distributors, the
Court finds that the record is devoid of evidence showing that
Master Worldwide targets North Carolina or its consumers, as
opposed to consumers in any other state. Nor is there evidence in
the record showing that Master Worldwide works with its
distributors to, in turn, distribute Easy Slide to consumers in
North Carolina. The company's product catalogs are available, in
electronic form on the company's website for viewing and download
by the general public, and they are also distributed, in hard copy
format, to the company's distributors, none of which are located
in North Carolina.

The Plaintiff has, likewise, failed to demonstrate that Master
Worldwide has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
conducting business in North Carolina to an extent sufficient to
support specific personal jurisdiction over it in this case. The
Court, therefore, concludes that it lacks specific personal
jurisdiction over Master Worldwide, and its motion to dismiss
must, likewise, be granted.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated
November 21, 2017, is available for free at https://is.gd/qATWLa
from Leagle.com.

VICKI YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES, WALLACE AND
GRAHAM, P.A..

VICKI YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL B. PROSS , WALLACE
AND GRAHAM, P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE , WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., W.
MARLOWE RARY, II , WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM,
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A..

PAMELA SUSAN RHODES, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES ,
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., MICHAEL B. PROSS , WALLACE AND GRAHAM,
P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE , WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & WILLIAM MARC
GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A..

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M.
TECHMAN, Esq. -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF,
ERIK D. NADOLINK, Esq. -- nadolink@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG
O'DONNELL LLP, JOHN W. ELDER, Esq. -- jwe@painebickers.com --
PAINE BICKERS LLP & JOHN A. HELLER, Esq. -- jheller@sidley.com --
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP.

AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E.
TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

MASTER INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
CARLISLE LAM, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & JONATHAN E.
SCHULZ, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.

MASTER INDUSTRIES WORLDWIDE, LLC, Defendant, represented by
RICHARD T. BOYETTE, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG & LAURA E. DEAN,
CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP.

MILWHITE, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aurora Pump Wins Summary Judgment in "Walsh"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Phillip A. Walsh and Naomi Walsh filed an action
against numerous defendants, including Defendant Aurora Pump
Company, alleging that Mr. Walsh contracted mesothelioma as a
result of his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
while serving in the United States Navy as a "machinist" from 1975
to 1977. Mr. Walsh was responsible for maintaining equipment in
the engine rooms on both the USS Halsey and USS Bigelow.

Mr. Walsh testified that some pumps and valves were insulated and
he removed and applied insulation to the equipment when making
repairs. Mr. Walsh believed that the parts contained asbestos
because it was "common knowledge," and on the kits he used. With
regard to the packing he stated that "depending on the pump, if it
was Gould or, you know, Warren or some of the names that I
mentioned before, it would have been those."

Mr. Walsh was the only product identification witness in this
case, but Mr. Walsh was unable to recall the maintenance history
regarding the equipment on the ships, how often he worked with
Aurora pumps, or whether the pumps were freshwater or saltwater
pumps.

Aurora Pump filed a motion for summary judgment.

Because the Plaintiffs Phillip A. Walsh and Naomi Walsh failed to
establish any permissible inference that Mr. Walsh was exposed to
Aurora Pump's asbestos-containing component parts which product
was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Walsh's injury, Judge
Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware grants
Aurora Pump Company's request for summary judgment.

The case is In Re: Asbestos Litigation. PHILLIP A. WALSH and NAOMI
WALSH, Plaintiffs, v. AURORA PUMP CO., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-
08-206 ASB, (Del. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 29, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/vQnkBd from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Summary Judgment in "Walsh"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
grants Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment because the
Plaintiffs Phillip A. Walsh and Naomi Walsh have not established
that the facts support any permissible inference that Mr. Walsh
was exposed to Warren Pumps' asbestos-containing components parts
for which was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Walsh's
injuries.

The Plaintiffs initiated the case styled In Re: Asbestos
Litigation. PHILLIP A. WALSH and NAOMI WALSH, Plaintiffs, v.
WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-08-206 ASB, (Del.
Super.), against numerous defendants including Defendant Warren
Pumps, LLC.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Walsh developed mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos while serving in the United States
Navy as a "machinist" from 1975 to 1977. Mr. Walsh performed
similar work in engine rooms on both the USS Halsey and USS
Bigelow -- maintaining equipment -- and he believes he was exposed
to asbestos from replacing packing and flange gaskets.

Mr. Walsh replaced pumps on the ships and stated that he would
have to pull insulation off the pumps, remove the old gaskets, and
put new packing in, and new gaskets on. Mr. Walsh believed that
the parts contained asbestos because it was "common knowledge,"
and on the kits he used. With regard to the packing he stated that
"depending on the pump, if it was Gould or, you know, Warren or
some of the names that I mentioned before, it would have been
those."

Mr. Walsh was the only product identification witness offered by
Plaintiffs in this case. He testified that some pumps and valves
were insulated and he removed and applied insulation to the
equipment when making repairs. However, Mr. Walsh could not
testify about the maintenance history regarding the equipment on
the ships, but he recalled Defendant as a manufacturer of pumps on
the USS Halsey and USS Bigelow.

The Plaintiffs used Mr. Walsh's general testimony about the
replacement parts as evidence that Mr. Walsh worked with asbestos
products manufactured by Defendant. However, Mr. Walsh could not
identify a specific pump manufactured by Warren, how often he
worked with Warren pumps, or the maintenance history of the Warren
pumps aboard the ships. Because Plaintiffs bear the burden of
proof at trial, the Court maintains that the Defendant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 29, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/TOgliU from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Simmons" Fails to Exhaust Available Remedies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District New York dismisses the case styled BRANDI
SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, No.
15-CV-2894 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.) because the Plaintiff Brandi Simmons
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff Brandi Simmons commenced this
action pro se against the Defendants the City of New York, Tony
Durante (warden of the correctional facility), and Joseph Ponte,
New York City Department of Correction Commissioner alleging
claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 premised on hazardous health
conditions at the Anna M. Kross Center on the Rikers Island
complex (the correctional facility where he was incarcerated).

On May 13, 2015, Chief Judge Loretta Preska, to whom this case was
originally assigned, issued an order instructing the Plaintiff to
submit an amended complaint. In her order, Chief Judge Preska
pointed out the deficiencies in the complaint and outlined what
Plaintiff would have to allege to plead satisfactorily his Section
1983 claim.

Specifically, with regard to the deficiencies, Chief Judge Preska
stated that: "Plaintiff does not clearly allege what he personally
experienced. For example, he does not allege the basis for his
knowledge about the presence of asbestos and he does not provide
such facts as exactly where within A.M.K.C. he experienced the
poor conditions, how long he has been exposed to the conditions,
the dates of exposure, whether he has had any specific health
issues and how he knows that any health issues are connected to
the alleged conditions. Outside of filing his grievance, Plaintiff
does not explain whether he reported the conditions to any other
corrections personnel and what response, if any, the reports
elicited. Finally, Plaintiff does not clearly allege facts showing
that the conditions posed a substantial risk of serious harm or
that any individual was deliberately indifferent to the risk of
serious harm to Plaintiff's health or safety. The complaint
therefore cannot proceed in its current form."

On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint,
thereafter, on June 17, 2015, the case was reassigned to Judge
Vernon S. Broderick.

On March 4, 2016, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the following grounds:

     (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to
allege a physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e, which precludes a confined
individual from bringing any action with respect to prison
conditions under Section 1983 or any other Federal law "until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted;"

     (2) failure to state a claim for municipal liability;

     (3) failure to state the personal involvement of Commissioner
Ponte and Warden Durante; and

     (4) failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim that
is facially plausible.

The Court determines that although Chief Judge Preska provided
Plaintiff with the proper form including questions the answers to
which would have cast significant light on the Plaintiff's
adherence to the grievance process, the Plaintiff did not provide
any information with respect to his exhaustion of the
administrative remedies except to state that his claim did arise
while he was incarcerated and that he filed a grievance on March
19, 2015, less than two weeks before he submitted his initial
complaint.

However, in the initial complaint, the Plaintiff stated that he
"filed a grievance [sic], but did not wait for a response because
[he] knew it would be a NON-GRIEVABLE action." The Plaintiff also
claimed that the grievance was "STILL PENDING." The Plaintiff
explicitly conceded that while he initiated a grievance, he did
not wait for a response or otherwise follow the IGRP procedure
before filing his complaint because he assumed the offense would
not be grievable, and there are no allegations in the Amended
Complaint that contradict these statements. Under these
circumstances, I find that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies at the time he filed his complaint.

After Plaintiff did not file his opposition by April 15, 2016, the
Court entered an Order on June 10, 2016, instructing the Plaintiff
to file an opposition on or before July 22, 2016, and informing
the Plaintiff that if no opposition is filed, the Court would
consider the motion fully briefed and render a decision without
the aid of his response. The Plaintiff did not submit any
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court issued another Order on January 17, 2017 noting that the
Plaintiff may not have received a copy of the June Order and
bringing to light that, irrespective of Plaintiff's failure to
file a notice of change of address, the Plaintiff had been
relocated from the AMKC to the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers
Island. For these reasons, the Court granted the Plaintiff another
opportunity to file an opposition to the Defendants' motion on or
before February 13, 2017, and noted that if no opposition was
filed, the Court would consider the motion fully briefed and
render a decision without the aid of Plaintiff's response.

In lieu of filing an opposition, the Plaintiff, on January 31,
2017, filed a letter requesting that the Court appoint counsel to
assist him in responding to the motion to dismiss. The Court
issued an Order on February 2, 2017 denying the Plaintiff's
request and again extending the time for Plaintiff to respond to
the motion to dismiss until March 3, 2017. However, to date, and
although Plaintiff continues to pay the pro se fees associated
with this litigation, the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 28, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/T4NHUi from Leagle.com.

Brandi Simmons, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Tony Durante, Defendant, represented by Caleb Charles Hagopian,
NYC Law Department.

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Caleb Charles
Hagopian, NYC Law Department.

Joseph Ponte, Defendant, represented by Caleb Charles Hagopian,
NYC Law Department.






                             *********


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  * * *