CAR_Public/171215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Friday, December 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 248



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Noohi" Suit over Contact Lenses
1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Thompson"
125 COURT STREET: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in 421-A Tenants Suit
A TO Z WIRING: Faces "Bunting" Wage-and-Hour Suit
AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Korrow" Case

ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
ALL COAST: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Seamen
ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT: "Nevarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Stays Class Certification Bid
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMERICAN FAMILY: Riggins Files 2nd Renewed Bid to Certify Class
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Seeks Final Approval of $800K Deal
AMSHER COLLECTION: Nolet Seeks Class Certification Under Damasco

ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Perry" Suit
ARKEMA INC: "Carter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Martin" Suit
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over RAF Firefighting Foam Pending

AVALON MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Santis" Suit Says
BAPTIST HEALTH: "Tishman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BDS NATURAL: "Reasoner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
BEACON'S CLOSET: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
BIG RIVER: Court Finds $62K Attorney's Fees Unreasonable

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Spisak" Suit Seeks Shift Managers Class
BRECK'S RIDGE: Parker Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class
CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CHICAGO, IL: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Ct. Won't Dismiss "Made in the USA" Condoms Suit

COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha, et al. Seek to Certify Class
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Heisler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CREDIT CORP: Derosia Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify COBRA Class Suit
CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Wadler" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denied Class Certification in "Buroff"
DEJA VU: Gomez-Ortega Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Worthless Travel Insurance
DNB: Faces Class Action Over Fund Management Charges
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Ranft" Suit

EAGLE EYE: Faces "Geraci" Suit in District of Connecticut
EL AL: Tel Aviv Court OKs Class Action Over "Matmid" Flyer Terms
EMSER TILE: "Robert" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
ENAGIC USA: "Makaron" Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Accused of Jacking Up Natural Gas Prices

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Fiorentino Suit
FIRST DATA: Certification of Class and Sub-Class Sought in "Fox"
FIRST FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
FIRST RESOLUTION: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Islas" Suit
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Fuller" Suit in N.D. Illinois

GLASS NICKEL: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Court Approval
GLOBAL TEL: Inmates' Class Action Over Phone Services Pending
HAJ INC: Court Defers Ruling on FLSA Suit Pending "Morris"
HAMILTON, OH: Robinson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
HARRY'S NURSES: "McFarlane" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
HOWARD ZUCKER: Turano et al. Bid to Amend Complaint Okayed
IC SYSTEM: Wins Summary Judgment, "Cornette" Class Suit Dismissed
ILLINOIS BRICK: Consumers Treated Unjustly in Price-Fixing Case
INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Ark. Supreme Court Remands Workers' Suit

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Mack" Suit in Calif. Superior Court
JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Stays Discovery in TCPA Suit
JASON WOLFE: Fails to Pay Wages, "Garcia" Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Judgment in "Goldemberg" Suit
JPAY INC: Faces "Defazio" Suit in District of New Jersey

JULIE JONES: "O'Connor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KEMPER CORPORATION: "Barrett" Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
KENTUCKY: State Appeals Ruling in Minor's Suit
KERRY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit over Sensitive Biometric Data
KEW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lomeli" Suit over Wage Statements

KINDRED HEALTH: "Al-Najiar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KONA GRILL: Cedeno Renews Motion to Certify Class of Sous Chefs
LAMBTON COLLEGE: Students to Pursue Class Action Over Strikes
LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Asks to Certify Tipped Workers Class
LELAND STANFORD: "Lagos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

LTI TRUCKING: Hearing on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2
LULAROE LLC: Refuses to Accept Return of Merchandise, Patton Says
LUNA CYCLES: "Damoiseaux" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
MARKHAM, IL: Faces "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines
MARKHAM, IL: Faces 2nd "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines

MARRIOTT INT'L: Vazquez Moves to Certify National COBRA Class
MCGOUGH BUS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Bus Drivers & Aides
MDL 2545: Medical Mutual Seeks to Certify RICO Classes
MESILLA VALLEY: Hrng on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2
MICHAEL BILLINGS: Dean Seeks Conditional Class Certification

MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class in "Arnold" Suit v. DOC
MTC FINANCIAL: "Manos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: "Jia" Suit Moved to N.D. Texas
NEW BOSTON PIE: Court Certifies Driver Class in "Brayak" Suit
NGL TRANSPORTATION: Yoo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.4-Mil. Settlement
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Jan. 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Collins"
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

PERSONNEL STAFFING: "Haack" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PHILLIP KNOWLES: Certification of Stone Detailers Class Sought
PORSCHE FINANCIAL: "Cox" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
POSTMATES INC: "Winns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Case Settlement Proceeds

PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL: Charles Moves to Certify FLSA Class
QUALITY VACATION: More Clients Express Interest in Joining Suit
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Betz Moves for Certification of Class
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify 2 Classes
ROSS STORES: No Seats for Checkers & Cashiers, "Zumaya" Suit Says

RUBIANO INC: Mays Moves to Certify Class of Entertainers/Dancers
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Baird" Suit in N.D. California
SAN JOSE, CA: Police Sued Over Undercover Gay Stings
SAUL CHEVROLET: Court Denies "Rivera" Bid to Certify Class

SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass
SCI DIRECT: Wins Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Romano" Complaint
SEAGATE TECH: Class Certification Sought in Hard Drive Case
SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court OKs $800K Settlement in "Lewis" Suit
SIMMONS FOODS: "Fochtman" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas

SODEXO INC: Court Denies Lazo's Amended Class Certification Bid
STATE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Bonin" Suit
STATE FARM: "Vogt" Suit Seeks to Certify Policy Owners Class
SUDLER AND COMPANY: Horist's Motion to Certify Class Withdrawn
SUMMITT TRUCKING: Bid to Certify in "Ratliff" Suit Withdrawn

SURFSIDE COFFEE: Jerez et al Seek to Certify Store Managers Class
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Suit Remanded to State Court
TAUBRA CORP: Agrees to Drivers Class Certification in "Burcham"
TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
TESLA INC: Former Employees Join Class Action Over Mass Firings

TEZOS: Silver Miller Files Class Action in Florida Over ICO
THREE SEASONS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Urrutia" Suit
TITLE SOURCE: Court Shelves Conditional Certification Bid
TK SERVICES: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
TOURO COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission
TT OF PINE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Mahoney" Suit
U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Hwang" Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Victorian Operations
UNITED STATES: Lerner, Paz Want IRS Case Depositions Sealed

UNITED TECH: "Millman" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
US CARGO: Hall Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class Under FLSA
VALBIN CORP: Court Grants Saleh's Motion to Certify Class
WAFFLE HOUSE: Job Applicants Consolidate FCRA Class Actions
WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Luna" Suit in Florida Circuit Court

WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Dean Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kitenge" Suit Says
ZTO EXPRESS: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit

* NZ Urged to Introduce Australian-Style Opt Out Class Actions
* Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings
* UK Still Not on Way of Getting US Class Actions Culture


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed in "Queen"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Denies Bid for Writ of Mandamus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Pitre" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Magistrate's Order in "Savoie"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkland SAC Stricken From Record
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Has $102.8MM Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Insurance Suit at Phase II
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 171 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,200 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $60MM Unfavorable Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,751 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sep. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.1MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Defends Numerous Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$551MM for Respirator Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$18MM for Aearo Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Pillsbury Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts US Imports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Council Probe After Asbestos Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA May Review "Legacy Uses" in Risk Evaluation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Homeless People's Shelter

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountain Hospital in Asbestos Scandal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Water to be Remedied by Filtration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Facility Needs $45,000 to Remove Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Must Pay Fired Worker




                            *********



1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Noohi" Suit over Contact Lenses
------------------------------------------------------
NARGUESS NOOHI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682489 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of
falsely advertising its sales receipts for its contact lenses and
to obtain redress for a California class of consumers who changed
position, within the applicable statute of limitations period, as
a result of Defendant's false and misleading advertisements.

The Defendant represents that consumers have not paid for their
contact lenses when they in have paid for their contact lenses,
thereby making Defendant's statements that they still need to pay
for their contact lenses in fact false. Defendant misrepresented
and falsely advertised the nature of the sales of its contact
lenses to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated purchased or attempt to
purchase Defendant's contact lenses, and they did so on the basis
that Defendant would not attempt to charge consumers multiple
times on the same sale. The Defendant's misrepresentations to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated caused them to purchase or
attempt Defendant's contact lenses, which Plaintiff and others
similarly situated would not have purchased or attempted to
purchase absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its
employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated California consumer
protection statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

1-800 Contacts Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in
Draper, Utah. The brands that 1-800-Contatcts has includes:
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Ciba Vision, Bausch & Lomb and
CooperVision brands. The company was incorporated in 1995.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

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


1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Thompson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled J THOMPSON, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 1-800
CONTACTS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC-
DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Tena Campbell entered an order
preliminarily approving settlement agreement, certifying
settlement class, and appointing class counsel and class
representatives for the settlement class.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

   "[a]ll persons in the United States who made at least one
   online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800 Contacts, Inc.,
   Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc., or National Vision, Inc.
   from March 10, 2010 through September 19, 2017, who do not
   timely exclude themselves from the Class. Excluded from the
   Settlement Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
   subsidiaries and affiliates, any alleged coconspirators,
   government entities and instrumentalities of government,
   states and their subdivisions, agencies and
   instrumentalities."

The Court said, "In the event that the Settlement Agreement is
terminated, is vacated, is not approved, or the Effective Date
fails to occur for any reason, then the parties to the Settlement
Agreement shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective
status in the Action as of the Execution Date, and, except as
otherwise expressly provided herein, such parties shall proceed in
all respects as if the Settlement Agreement and any related orders
had not been entered, and the Settlement Agreement and this
Preliminary Approval Order shall be null and void, of no further
force or effect, and without prejudice to any of the Settling
Parties, and may not be introduced as evidence or referred to in
any actions or proceedings by any Person; provided, however, that
in the event of termination of the Settlement Agreement, and the
Settlement Agreement shall nonetheless survive and continue to be
of effect and have
binding force. Any portion of the Settlement Amount previously
deposited into the Escrow Account by the Settling Defendants shall
be returned to the Settling Defendants within thirty (30) days
after written notification of such event is sent by counsel for
Settling Defendants or Class Counsel to the Escrow Agent, except
for up to $100,000 of sums actually paid from the Settlement Fund
for the reasonable costs of Notice."

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


125 COURT STREET: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in 421-A Tenants Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs 421-A Tenants Association Inc., Richard Lebed and
Vinetta Scrivo filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum
and order dated November 2, 2017, and District Court judgment
dated November 3, 2017, entered in their lawsuit styled 421-A
Tenants Association Inc., et al. v. 125 Court Street LLC, et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-563, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The appellate case is captioned as 421-A Tenants Association Inc.,
et al. v. 125 Court Street LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3865, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants 421-A Tenants Association Inc., Vinetta
Scrivo and Richard Lebed, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Robert John Valli, Jr., Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees 125 Court Street LLC, Two Trees Management
Co. LLC, 30 Main LLC, DW Associates LP, David C. Walentas, Jed D.
Walentas and 194 Atlantic LLC are represented by:

          Paul L. Shechtman, Esq.
          BRACEWELL LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 508-6100
          Facsimile: (800) 404-3970
          E-mail: paul.shechtman@bracewell.com


A TO Z WIRING: Faces "Bunting" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------
LAFARRELL BUNTING, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. A TO Z WIRING, LLC, and RWL
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00525-JSM-
PRL (M.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory and
liquidated damages and other relief from Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff trained for
approximately 4 weeks without being paid for his training. The
additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are
Defendants' current and former employees, who were not paid for
their training and who worked overtime hours for Defendants, but
were not compensated for those hours because Defendants
misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Birk, Esq.
          MATTHEW BIRK, LLC
          309 Northeast First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244 2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372 3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Korrow" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARGARET KORROW, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARON'S INC and John
Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-06317-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Lois Goodman entered an order:

   1. certifying class and subclass:

      Class:

      "all natural persons who entered into a rent-to-own
      contract with Defendant Aaron's, Inc. New Jersey from March
      16, 2016, through and including March 31, 2011."; and

      CFA - "Prorated" Amount subclass:

      "all members of the Class a defined above who paid
      Defendant Aaron's, Inc., a first monthly payment that
      included a "prorated" amount"

      CFA - "Service" Plus Subclass:

      "all members of the Class a defined above who paid
      Defendant Aaron's, Inc., a first monthly payment that
      included a "ServicePlus" fee";

   2. granting motion for preliminarily approval of proposed
      settlement Agreement; and

   3. provisionally certifying Settlement Class:

      "those 22,145 natural persons identified on the Class List
      previously provided by Aaron's, Inc., to A.B. Data, Ltd. on
      December 6, 2016 and updated ad provided in the Settlement
      Agreement to exclude the 17 natural persons excluded from
      the Litigation by the Court's June 16, 2017 Consent Order
      Granting Request fir Exclusion from Certified Class and the
      two business entities that were included in the December 6,
      2016 list that Aaron's Inc., provided to A.B. Data, Ltd.

The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to pay the
amount $5,8000,000 into the Settlement Fund in full and final
settlement of all claims in the Litigation to be used to pay (i)
the cash component of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members;
(ii) all costs related to the pre-settlement litigated class
certification Notice of Administration; (iii) all cost
administering the Settlement, including but not limited to, all
cost of Notice, implementation of the Settlement, providing
Settlement Relief Packets to Settlement Class Members and the fees
of the Settlement Administrator; (iv) an Individual Service Award
to the Class Representative; and (v) Attorney's Fees and Costs of
Settlement Class Counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IQ8wufXP


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARMEN AGUIRRE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS
CORP.; and BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

   "(1) all persons with Illinois addresses, (2) who were sent a
   letter by Defendants to collect a debt owned by Absolute, (3)
   which letter stated "because of interest, late charges, and
   other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on
   the day you pay may be greater," (4) which was sent at any
   time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of
   this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this
   action."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending a form collection letter that
falsely stated that "interest, late charges, and other charges"
may continue to accrue when in fact they could not, that
threatened to add interest, late charges, and other charges to
Plaintiff's account when such actions could not legally be taken
and were not intended to be taken, and that used unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt by threatening to collect
interest, late charges, and other charges from Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WvbJTl6l

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2017, in the case
styled Crixenia Magpayo v. Advocate Health Care Network, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01176 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable John Robert Blakey.

The minute entry states that:

   -- motion hearing was held on November 29, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is taken under
      advisement;

   -- Defendant's motion for summary judgment is taken under
      advisement; and

   -- the Court will rule and set additional case management
      dates, by separate order.

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


ALL COAST: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Seamen
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILLIAM ADAMS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALL COAST, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01426-UDJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying conditional class of:

      "all cooks, mates, deckhands, ordinary seamen and able-
      bodied seamen employed by All Coast, LLC in those workweeks
      in which they were employed in those classifications in the
      last three (3) years, except for those employees who signed
      waiver and release agreements and also excluding all
      captains, training captains, licensed engineers and
      unlicensed engineers employed by All Coast LLC in the last
      three years";

   2. appointing William Adams as class representative; and

   3. appointing Moore & Associates as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          MOORE &ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739

The Defendant is represented by:

          Armin J. Moeller, Jr., Esq.
          Ashley Eley Cannady, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 1400
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 961 9900
          Facsimile: (601) 961 4466
          E-mail: amoeller@balch.com


ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT: "Nevarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL NEVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALL HARBOR TRANSPORT, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC680274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct 19, 2017), alleges that
the Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest
periods; failed to timely pay wages, failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failed to indemnify necessary
business expenses.

All Harbor is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEBRA MALONEY, ELAINE BONIN, and EBORAH
OZIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01610-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate. Plaintiffs further requests that the Court stay
this class certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DtZkHA0S

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Stays Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHARON MEYER et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01106-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motions to stay their class certification
motion and for relief from the local rules.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent
defendant from mooting the action, plaintiffs move for class
certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other
grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.
2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672
(2016).

A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rFsctg5b

In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI, RACHEL HOLMES, and ANNE
O'BOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs asked the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to stay the class certification
motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed,
and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules'
automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a
brief and supporting documents in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LORALIE NOLET, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN
FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01611-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AMERICAN FAMILY: Riggins Files 2nd Renewed Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARNITA RIGGINS, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
2:14-cv-04171-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Darnita Riggins moves the Court for
an order certifying Plaintiff's second renewed motion to certify
class of:

   "all persons and entities insured under an American Family
   homeowner's policy who received one or more "Actual Cash
   Value" payments from American Family on May 21, 2004 or later
   for physical loss or damage to their residence or other
   structure located in Missouri, where in the calculation of
   Actual Cash Value, the cost of labor was depreciated."

The class includes only such persons and entities whose American
Family policy defined "Actual Cash Value" as "the amount it costs
to repair or replace property with property of like kind and
quality less depreciation for physical deterioration and
obsolescence."

Excluded from the class are those who: received the limit of
insurance shown on the declarations page of their policy; or
received any supplemental payments, other than additional Actual
Cash Value payments on their claim; or submitted their claim for
determination through the appraisal process provided in the
policy.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court that she be appointed class
representative, and that her counsel David T. Butsch, Christopher
E. Roberts, and Joe D. Jacobson be appointed counsel for the
class.

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

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 5700
          Facsimile: (314) 863 5711
          E-mail: Butsch@ButschRoberts.com
                  Roberts@ButschRoberts.com

               - and -

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS P.C.
          168 North Meramec Ave., Suite 150
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899 9789
          Facsimile: (314) 899 0282
          E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Seeks Final Approval of $800K Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JIMMIE JARRELL, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, Inc.; a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-01481-JST (N.D. Cal.),
asks the Court to grant final approval of the Stipulation Re:
Settlement of Class and Collective Action he reached with
AmeriGas.

Mr. Jarrell also asks the Court to certify the Settlement Class
defined as:

     all Persons who were employed by AmeriGas as a Service
     Technician (a non-exempt or hourly position) in California
     from February 16, 2012, through the date of preliminary
     approval (August 4, 2017).

The Defendant agrees that $800,000 represents the maximum amount
that it will pay out under this Stipulation.

Distributions from the Gross Settlement Fund are as follows:

   Item                            Amount
   ----                          ----------
   Gross Settlement Fund        $800,000.00
   Unreimbursed costs to
   Setareh Law Group            ($15,380.54)
   Third-party administrator
   charges (RUST)               ($20,000.00)
   Class Representative
   Service Awards               ($10,000.00)
   Payment to LWDA              ($30,000.00)
   Fees to Class Counsel       ($266,640.00)
                                 ----------
   Net allocation to           ($457,979.46)
   participating Class Members

BALANCE FOLLOWING ALL DISTRIBUTIONS = $0.00

Mr. Jarrell further asks the Court to: (i) appoint him as
representative for the Settlement Class, (ii) appoint Setareh Law
Group as counsel for the Settlement Class, and (iii) enter
judgment on the terms specified in the Stipulation and approved by
the Court.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 11, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PlvU2jqe

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


AMSHER COLLECTION: Nolet Seeks Class Certification Under Damasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loralie Nolet moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned LORALIE NOLET, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMSHER
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01657-PP (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions
that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a
class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th
Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has
attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the
proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-
cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff says.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3mwmAvZH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Perry" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZECKEYA PERRY, the PLAINTIFF, v. WENDY
KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; et al., the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:17-cv-00269-JM-JJV (E.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge James M. Moody, Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
      appointment of class counsel; and

   2. certifying, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), that
      an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the
      recommendations would not be taken in good faith.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lT0DBOma


ARKEMA INC: "Carter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROGER D. CARTER, EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, DAVID
WAYNE WARREN, and RICKY LYNN WOODS, and a class of others
similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ARKEMA, INC., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-01241-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court to enter an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action
pursuant to FRCP Rule 23(b)(2), with a class defined as:

   "all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and whose initial service dates
   were "adjusted" to the first day of the month next following
   their attainment of 25 years of age"; and

   "all participants in the Arkema, Inc. Retirement Benefits
   Plan, at any time from January 1, 1988 to the present, who
   were employed by Arkema, Inc. or its predecessors at Arkema's
   Carrollton, Kentucky plant, and who are eligible (or may
   become eligible) for the Rule of 85 due to termination of
   employment after reaching the age of 55 and 30 years of
   service".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NE3I9ZRX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Leightty, Esq.
          Alison Messex, Esq.
          PRIDDY, CUTLER, NAAKE & MEADE, PLLC
          2303 River Road, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 632 5292
          Facsimile: (502) 632 5293
          E-mail: dleightty@earthlink.net
                  amessex@pcnmlaw.com


ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO PONCE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. ARMISTICE PROTECTIVE &
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; X ZERO
PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC682464 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members often
worked at two different locations during their shifts for
Defendants. They were given an hour between the end time at the
first bar and the start time at the second bar, during which they
were required to clock out and commute to the second location, but
were also told that this was their meal period and their only
break for the shift. However, since Plaintiff and Class Members
were required to commute to the second location in their own
vehicles for Defendant during the time they were clocked out, and
were not paid for this time, Defendants failed to even pay minimum
wage for these work hours. Furthermore, based on the hours
Plaintiff and Class members worked, the time spent commuting was
to be paid at the overtime rate.

Armistice Protective is a leading intelligence firm providing
protection for home or business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, California 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Martin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Martin moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled CRYSTAL MARTIN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ATLANTIC CREDIT
& FINANCE INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01652-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions
that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a
class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th
Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has
attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the
proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-
cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GWZ1U3F0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over RAF Firefighting Foam Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that
Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon says Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
needs to stand in front of the Williamtown community and outline a
timeline for action after the Nov. 19 shock doubling of the
contamination red zone to include another 250 houses.

Mr Turnbull and other senior politicians needed to "get out of the
bubble of Canberra" to appreciate the true impact of the fire
fighting foam scandal on people more than two years after
confirmation of pollution from Williamtown RAAF base for years,
she said.

"I don't think he's focused on Williamtown at all because of the
pressures the government's under in parliament.

"Imagine how terrible that was Nov. 19 for so many people in the
Williamtown area -- getting that knock on the door," Ms Rhiannon
said after NSW Environment Protection Authority chief Barry
Buffier announced on Nov. 19 that health officers were
doorknocking the 250 newly-included red zone households on the
weekend after new Defence data to the Williamtown Expert Panel.

It also came after previous Newcastle Herald reports on residents
outside the red zone with blood levels of the per- and poly-
fluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) at 10 times the national average.

The expanded red zone announcement came during a surprise meeting
at which Mr Buffier and NSW chief scientist Professor Mary O'Kane
admitted that if the Department of Defence does not ramp up its
remediation efforts, the red zone will exist in its current form
until at least 2050.

Ms Rhiannon changed her schedule to be at Williamtown on Nov. 20
to meet with residents and commit to taking the fight back to
Canberra. But she conceded the plight of Williamtown residents was
not cutting through with decision-makers.

"This whole thing's been shocking the whole way through in the way
it has been handled. Effectively I have to say to these people
there hasn't been much progress since the first time I was here
two years ago.  We're not able to deliver on what's needed," she
said.

"It is personally upsetting.  I have children and grandchildren.
You do think of yourself in that situation and what you would do,
particularly if you had children.  The Prime Minister does need to
step in so that he can hear from people directly about the effect
this is having on their lives.

"It's not as if there's a question about who's caused the
contamination.  The Department of Defence has admitted total
liability.  But does the Prime Minister understand what it is like
for people living in these areas? No, not at all."

Ms Rhiannon said there was every likelihood the government would
only act on compensation for people in response to the class
action initiated by residents.

"A legal precedent can force the government's hands," she said.

Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group president Cain
Gorfine said the Nov. 19 announcement showed the contamination
scandal was "completely out of control".

"It's like a train they cannot stop.  There are now 250 more
families that will wake up tomorrow morning, thinking 'Have I
poisoned my kids?' It's not an exaggeration.  That's the reality
for them," Mr Gorfine said.

About 500 affected households and businesses who have suffered
losses because of the contamination scandal have so far signed up
for a class action against the Department of Defence, litigation
funder IMF Bentham said in a statement on Nov. 20.

The action, being run by Dentons Lawyers in Sydney, seeks
compensation for economic losses suffered by households and
businesses because of the contamination, including loss of value
of homes and reduced profitability of businesses.

The action is also seeking compensation for stress, vexation and
inconvenience.

The class action is being run on a "closed class" basis which
means only people who have signed funding agreements with IMF are
eligible to participate.

IMF is continuing to accept registrations from anyone in the three
management zones announced on Nov. 19. [GN]


AVALON MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Santis" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SANTIS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVALON MANUFACTURING, a
Corporation, 20 and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
BC682709 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants did and do business by
manufacturing and selling doughnut  and bakery industry equipment,
and employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees within the Counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, and
throughout the state of California. The Plaintiff was hired by
Defendants in March 2006, until Plaintiffs employment with
Defendant was terminated Winter of 2016. During Plaintiffs
employment, he worked as a non-exempt employee for Defendant's
primary business of manufacturing and selling doughnut and bakery
equipment, and was paid non-discretionary bonuses, commission
and/or other forms of compensation not excludable as a matter of
law when calculating an employee's regular rate. The Plaintiffs
job as a welder involved fabrication of equipment, including but
not limited to, fryers, finishing tables, cooling racks, among
other related tasks for Defendant's manufacturing business.

During Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely
worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours
per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for working
overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees nondiscretionary incentive pay, including:
non-discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of pay
not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an employee's
regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to
Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to include all forms of
Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay,
thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all required overtime
wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one-and-a-half times (or
two times in the case of double-time hours) the base hourly rate,
which is not equal to the regular rate, as Defendants failed to
include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff
during corresponding time periods that are required to be included
in the regular rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM FILED
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446

               - and -

          Sean M. Novak, Esq.
          NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 424 4313
          Facsimile: (323) 424 4357


BAPTIST HEALTH: "Tishman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida Professional
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH
FLORIDA, INC., BAPTIST SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-62230-JEM (S.D. Fla.), Mr.
Tishman moves the Court for entry of an order certifying a class:

   "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages after November 14, 2013 about outpatient
   diagnostic tests or home sleep tests available from or through
   Baptist Health South Florida or Baptist Sleep Centers."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=leMXVT3v

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


BDS NATURAL: "Reasoner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA REASONER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. BDS NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
a LABOR CODE 98.6 and 1102.5 California corporation; and DOES 1
through 250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680577 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was prevented
from taking her meal periods and rest breaks for reasons
including, that she was required to remain at her work station and
was not relieved. In March 2015, Plaintiff reported this issue to
Martin Oliva, Defendant's Human Resources Manager. She also
complained to him that, in addition to not getting her breaks, she
was not being paid for her overtime work and instead was only
being paid for 8 hours per day even when she worked longer.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was written up for a final warning
for not taking a meal period. Plaintiff again complained to Mr.
Oliva that she was not being relieved, was required to remain at
her work station, and that if was required to list a meal period
when she was not able to take one, that would be a lie and
illegal.

BDS Natural Products offers product knowledge of the world's
botanical and spice supply.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, 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
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


BEACON'S CLOSET: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beacon's Closet,
Inc. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Beacon's
Closet, Inc., Beacon's Closet Jr., Inc., Beacon's Closet III,
Inc., and Beacon's Closet IV, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-08498-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Beacons Closet is a clothing store.[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


BIG RIVER: Court Finds $62K Attorney's Fees Unreasonable
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, issued an Order denying Parties'
Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned KIM PIERCE, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. BIG RIVER STEEL LLC, Defendant, No. 3:17-cv-63-DPM
(E.D. Ark.).

The parties want to settle their dispute about unpaid overtime.
Pierce used to work at Big River's steel mill.  She filed the
case, alleging that the mill had shorted her and other employees
in paying overtime.  She proposed a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the parallel
Arkansas statute.  Pierce and her colleagues were paid production
bonuses.  Big River, she alleged, hadn't included those bonuses in
calculating the correct rate for the overtime everyone routinely
worked at the mill.

Under the proposed deal, Pierce agrees to dismiss the case with
prejudice, release a basket of other potential claims (reserving
those asserted in a pending EEOC charge), and not to seek or
accept employment with Big River in the future.  There's no
release of co-workers' claims.  Big River agrees to provide a
neutral reference.  The parties acknowledge the $2,978.68 already
paid Pierce for unpaid overtime, an equal amount of liquidated
damages, and interest.  The parties propose that Big River pay
Pierce $10,720 more representing an incentive award for
settlement.  They also propose that Big River pay Pierce's lawyers
$62,000 in fees and expenses.  The lawyers are out of pocket
$487.49 for the filing fee, service, and copies.

Rounding for simplicity, Pierce's lawyers worked 51 hours, which
generated (at healthy hourly rates ranging from $175 to $290) an
$11,500 bill.

Other circumstances, though, weigh against the deal, decisively
so, in the Court's view.  First, no collective action or class has
been certified.  An incentive award to Pierce and a non-lodestar
attorney's fee reflect group-wide litigation that didn't really
happen.  Second, the proposed incentive award to Pierce is not
fair.  The payment she got for overtime represents a 100% recovery
of everything she could have gained by winning the case.  She did
not earn a service fee by giving a deposition, attending hearings,
or being the public face of workers in an extended dispute with
their employer.  The proposed attorney's fee is unreasonable.  The
parties' proposal seeks a multiplier of more than 5. In lodestar
terms, the proposal seeks an hourly rate of more than $1200.

"That's unreasonable," the Court said.

"Counsel deserves credit, and probably some reasonable
compensation for raising the storm flag, but approximately $50,000
more than a generous hours-based fee is just too much," the Court
held.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hkwmcp from Leagle.com.

Kim Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by April Rheaume, Sanford Law
Firm, 103 West Parkway Drive Suite C, Russellville, AR 72801
Kim Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm & Stephen Rauls,
Sanford Law Firm, 103 West Parkway Drive Suite C, Russellville, AR
72801

Big River Steel LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathlyn Graves -
kgraves@mwlaw.com --, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,
P.L.L.C. & Nathan Andrew Read -- Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates
& Woodyard, P.L.L.C..


BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Spisak" Suit Seeks Shift Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANGELA SOMMERVILLE, MARIAH ANDERSON, HOLLY
SPISAK and KHAMECIA ROBINSON, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiffs, v. FLSA Opt-In Collective Action
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-565 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order
conditionally certifying a class of:

   "all current and former hourly-paid Shift Managers (a/k/a
   Shift Leaders) employed by Defendants in the United States at
   any time during the applicable limitations period covered by
   this Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA
   violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to
   and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and
   who is a Named Plaintiff or elect to opt-in to this action
   pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)."

The individuals comprising this class have been subject to
Defendants' common policy of working hourly-paid Shift Managers
a/k/a Shift Leaders off the clock. Thus, they have been under
compensated because Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, failed
and willfully refused to pay for all unpaid straight time work,
unpaid minimum wages, and premium pay for overtime work for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xGs9PNe7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara L. Huckert, Esq.
          STRIANESE HUCKERT PLLC
          www.strilaw.com
          401 North Tryon St., 10th Floor
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 998 2577
          Facsimile: (704) 998 5301
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
                  tamara@strilaw.com


BRECK'S RIDGE: Parker Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Garry Parker On behalf of himself and other
members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Breck's Ridge, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00633-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants
      who performed general labor and had an automatic meal
      deduction applied in any workweek that they were scheduled
      and worked over 40 hours for the period beginning three
      years immediately preceding the filing of this Motion until
      final disposition of this case"; and

   3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time
      from three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=co35hBeb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

                - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704 0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573 9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHELE TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL PONY EXPRESS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00552-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class;

   2. directing Defendant to produce a list of names, last known
      addresses, and last known email addresses, and telephone
      numbers for all current and former Dispatchers who worked
      for Defendant during relevant time period;

   3. authorizing dissemination of suggested notice to potential
      members of this collective action; and

   4. scheduling a 60-day notice period following complete
      production of the aforementioned employee contact
      information, and awarding Plaintiff all other relief to
      which they may be justly entitled.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0pq6AHHG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Justin Jenson, Esq.
          Katie McGregor, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          Marathon Oil Tower
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425 7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425 7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com
                  jjenson@bpblaw.com
                  kmcgregor@bpblaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARNELL SMITH, DARREN NATHAN, GREGORY DAVIS,
MARK NEVILLES, ARACELI FONTANEZ, as Parent and Next
Friend of HECTOR FONTANEZ, a minor, MARCELL DAVIS, ANTHONY POLK,
CALVIN JACKSON, CARL N. MCCORD, TIMOTHY THIGPEN, MELVIN
THOMPSON, REBECCA SANDERS, as Parent and Next Friend of STEVE
MCABEE, a minor, HERBERT DYER, JR., SHANTAY JOHNSON, ARTHUR MOTON,
EDGAR MARSHALL, JR., MICHAEL SANDERS, RASHAWN LINDSEY, and SIDNEY
BELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a
municipal corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03467 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class
and subclass of:

Fourth Amendment Class:

   "all persons subjected to an investigatory stop by the
   Chicago Police Department at any time since April 20, 2013,
   which resulted in the creation of a contact information card";
   and

Fourteenth Amendment Subclass:

   "all African-Americans and Hispanics subjected to an
   investigatory stop by the Chicago Police Department at any
   time since April 20, 2013, which resulted in the creation of a
   contact information card."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8KjtCu2z

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Eldridge, Esq.
          Steven A. Hart, Esq.
          Kyle Pozan, Esq.
          John (Jack) B. Prior, Esq.
          HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
          121 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1050
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 955 0545
          E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com
                  beldridge@hmelegal.com
                  kpozan@hmelegal.com
                  jprior@hmelegal.com

               - and -

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Martin D. Gould, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458 1000
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
                  mgould@rblaw.net

               - and -

          Robert S. Peck, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
          777 6th Street NW, Suite 520
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 944-2874
          E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com

               - and -

          Rodney G. Gregory, Esq.
          THE GREGORY LAW FIRM
          3127 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 3
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 398 0012
          E-mail: rod@gregorylawfirm.net


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Ct. Won't Dismiss "Made in the USA" Condoms Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned KENRICK CLAIBORNE, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH &
DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00746-L-JLB (S.D.
Cal.).

This is a false advertising case.  Defendant is a major
manufacturer of household goods.  Among its product lines are
Trojan brand male condoms.  At least two lines of Trojan brand
condoms have the words Made in U.S.A. printed on the packaging.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant's Made in U.S.A. representation
violates California law because more than ten percent of the
Condoms' wholesale value derives from natural latex material
produced outside of the United States.

The central question the motion to dismiss presents is whether
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that more than ten percent of the
Condoms' wholesale value comes from outside of the United States.
Under California law, it is unlawful to market as Made in U.S.A.
any product if more than ten percent of the product's final
wholesale value represents products or services hailing from
outside of the United States.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks standing because the
allegations of the Complaint establish that it is not possible for
a natural latex condom to carry a lawful Made in U.S.A. label
because of insufficient domestic natural rubber production.

This argument, according to the Court, misreads the Complaint. The
Complaint does not allege that it is impossible for Defendant to
produce the Condoms with domestically produced natural latex.
Rather, it simply alleges that because of the current natural
latex domestic supply and demand imbalance, Defendant currently
uses imported natural latex.  From this, it does not follow that
Defendant could not switch to using domestic natural latex. If
Defendant did thus change its sourcing, Defendant might elect to
keep the Made in U.S.A. representation in place. Without
injunctive relief, Plaintiff could encounter difficulty in
determining whether such information is accurate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fl4sfb from Leagle.com.

Kenric Claiborne, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Kenric Claiborne, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald --
jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald,
PC, Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo
LLP, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jacktfitzgeraldlaw.com --
The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, Steven M. McKany, Robbins
Arroyo LLP & Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com --
Hillcrest Professional Building.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Baldassare
Vinti -- bvinti@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Lindsay Jones -- jljones@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose,
Lawrence Ira Weinstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Qian
Jennifer Yang - jyang@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac
vice & Richard Martin Goldstein -- rgoldstein@proskauer.com -- pro
hac vice.


COLONIAL PARKING: Abraha, et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BENYAM ABRAHA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
COLONIAL PARKING, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00680-CKK (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order
certifying a class of:

   "any person who was entitled to a benefit from the Forge
   Health and Welfare Plan at any time from January 1, 2002,
   through December 31, 2015."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Scallet, Esq.
          EASCOLAW, PLLC
          2756 Stephenson Lane, NW
          Washington, DC 20015


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Heisler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf of himself and
the class, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES,
INC., an Illinois Corporation; and JOHN DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01344-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), Chad H.
Heisler moves the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's
renewed motion for class certification of:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
   CHRI mailed an initial written communication in an attempt to
   collect a debt that was not returned as undeliverable by the
   United States Postal Service which listed "Re: WF, Inc. -
   Elmwood Mem" as a means for identifying the creditor on or
   after October 6, 2015 and on or before October 27, 2016."

Excluded from the Class is CHRI and its officers, members,
partners, managers, directors and employees and their respective
immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this
action and all members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Stern Thomasson LLP and
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for
the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GW17sA9g

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917 4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-Mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-Mail: heather@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


CREDIT CORP: Derosia Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Derosia moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled DENISE DEROSIA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT CORP
SOLUTIONS INC d/b/a TASMAN CREDIT CORP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-JPS
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, according
to the Plaintiff.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice, the
Plaintiff says.  Unfortunately, the Plaintiff contends, they have
not.

In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a
defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class
representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of
the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and
having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to
a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts.  Campbell-
Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now
decide whether the result would be different if a defendant
deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an
account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters
judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

The Plaintiffs argues that one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  In Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016), the defendant
moved the Court for leave to deposit funds.  Judge Randa denied
the request on grounds that a motion for class certification was
pending at the time of the defendant's motion. Id.

Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

One of the judges in this District has, in the past, specifically
requested of Plaintiff's counsel that he not file a brief and
supporting documents in support of a class certification motion
filed with a complaint pursuant to Damasco, the Plaintiff notes.
But doing so would violate the local rules absent the type of
relief sought in this motion, the Plaintiff argues.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S4rZb9U8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify COBRA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LUIS A. VALDIVIESO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUSHMAN
& WAKEFIELD INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00118-SDM-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a Improper
COBRA Election Notice National Class of:

   "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health
   Plan who were sent the COBRA election notice, during the time
   period February 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, who did not
   elect continuation coverage."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com
                  mk@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS
          201 S Westland Avenue
          Tampa, Florida 33606
          Telephone: (813) 254 1777
          Facsimile: (813) 254 3999
          E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Merry E. Lindberg, Esq.
          Todd S. Aidman, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401


CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Wadler" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PERRY WADLER, GERALD SPRINGER, TROY WILLIS,
and KEITH TYNER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CUSTARD INSURANCE
ADJUSTERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05840-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a class
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xd5XqmuH

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennettt, Esq.
          Mark G. Griffin, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          www.scalaw.com
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  cbenette@scalaw.com
                  mgriffin@scalaw.com


DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denied Class Certification in "Buroff"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEMETRIUS BUROFF and IAN BARNHART,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00124-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon.
Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order on November 13, 2017:

   1. denying, with leave to refile, Plaintiff's first amended
      motion for class certification of:

      "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November
      8, 2016, who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of
      Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not
      serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had
      not previously voted in the 2016 general election, were
      provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a
      voting center, and were registered to vote or had been
      denied the opportunity to vote while held in the Allen
      County Jail."; and

   2. dismissing Plaintiff Demetrius Buroff.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u5sQBF8W


DEJA VU: Gomez-Ortega Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE P. GOMEZ-ORTEGA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEJA VU-SAN FRANCISCO, LLC,
a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA VU INC., a Nevada
corporation; DEJA VU SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation; PINE
TREE ASSETS, INC., a Michigan corporation, DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS OF
SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA VU
SHOWGIRLSSACRAMENTO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DEJA
VU-HIGHLAND PARK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-
562247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
premium and overtime 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 pay them without discount; failed to provide them with
accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of
their final wages following separation of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Levian, 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


DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Worthless Travel Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Carlson, writing for The Virgin Islands Daily News,
reports that Delta and American airlines are facing a class-action
lawsuit that claims they aggressively marketed worthless travel
insurance to Virgin Islands residents, according to court
documents.

Plaintiff Leslie Davis filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on
St. Croix on Nov. 15 on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated.  The lawsuit is claiming more than 100 class members and
an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. [GN]


DNB: Faces Class Action Over Fund Management Charges
----------------------------------------------------
Ole Petter Skonnord, writing for Reuters, reports that the asset
management arm of Norwegian banking giant DNB overcharged
customers for investing in three of its funds, an Oslo court heard
on Nov. 20 in the country's largest ever class action lawsuit.

The Norwegian Consumer Council is seeking to reclaim 690 million
crowns ($85 million) on behalf of 180,000 customers with DNB who
had placed money in the funds between January 2010 and December
2014.

DNB Asset Management is accused of charging customers for actively
managing the funds but in reality was simply tracking a stock
market index -- a claim DNB denies.

"When the Consumer Council takes this case to court it is not just
about claiming money back for those who paid too much," Steinar
Mageli, representing the council, told the court in his opening
statement.

"Saving money in a fund is the way we save for pensions now, so
its conditions are very important for people's pensions . . . when
people have to save much more money themselves."

"Second, it raises a legal and financial question: has the
customer got what he paid for? And third, from a consumer power
perspective, lacking services need to see consequences."

DNB says the funds were actively managed.

"DNB denies its obligations to fund owners have been breached,"
the bank said in court documents.

"The . . . funds have been managed properly and in accordance with
the Securities Funds Act, the funds' articles of association and
investor information and often given fund owners more excess
returns than costs."

The case at Oslo's district court is scheduled to last until
Dec. 8 with the judgment expected to follow in January. [GN]


DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Certification of Class Sought in "Ranft" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Ranft moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled JANE RANFT, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM,
LLC, and CREDITBOX.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01673-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions
that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a
class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th
Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has
attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the
proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-
cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2qUyJFuE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAGLE EYE: Faces "Geraci" Suit in District of Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Eye Marketing
Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Peter Geraci, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eagle
Eye Marketing Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01839-
MPS (D. Conn., No. 1, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael P. Shea.

Eagle Eye Marketing Group Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of home
furnishings and housewares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223 6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223 6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com


EL AL: Tel Aviv Court OKs Class Action Over "Matmid" Flyer Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Yeshiva World reports that the Tel Aviv District Court is
recognizing a class action lawsuit against El Al Airlines in the
amount of 1.28 billion shekels.

The petitioner requested the court view the case as a class action
lawsuit based on changes made by the airline almost three years
ago regarding terms of a "Matmid" flyer.

The change in conditions included three changed conditions in
respect of which the plaintiffs request the legendary sum:

   1. Goals for which a bonus ticket will be required - more
points will be required.

   2. Goals for which a bonus ticket will be required - 50% more
points will be required.

   3. Ending the ability to purchase a ticket open for one year
using bonus points.

The Tel Aviv District Court approved the filing of the class
action and defined the members of the group as members of the four
different levels of the club: regular, silver, gold and platinum -
- at the time of each of the changes in the plan they held points
whose value was reduced due to the changes.

The court decision states: "A member of the club who buys a plane
ticket to a certain destination knows that apart from the ticket
he will accumulate points of economic value, so when he chooses to
fly with the respondent, he may agree to pay for the ticket he
offers more than he would pay the competitor.

Until the change in the plan, in February 2015, the price of bonus
tickets was fixed and did not change for a decade.  Thus, the
members of the club were expected that the number of points that
would be needed to obtain a ticket would not change easily, and
certainly would not apply to the points they accumulated." [GN]


EMSER TILE: "Robert" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
LA'RIT A ROBERT, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMSER TILE, LLC, a Limited
Liability 21 II Company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG17881668 (Cal Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay proper
overtime wages; failed to provide accurate records; failed to pay
waiting time penalties; and engaged in Unfair Business Practices,
all in violations of the Labor Code and IWC Wage.

Emser Tile supplies ceramic and porcelain tiles and natural stone
products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: wlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333

               - and --

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


ENAGIC USA: "Makaron" Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edward Makaron, on behalf of
himself and of all others similarly situated, the Respondent, v.
Enagic USA, Inc., the Movant, Case No. 215CV5145DDP, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Gainesville) on Oct. 9, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-mi-00001-
RWS-JCF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Richard W. Story.

Enagic USA is the sole dedicated distribution arm within the
United States for Enagic (Headquartered in Japan). Enagic
manufactures, distributes and services the entire line of Kangen
Water(R) electrolysis devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq., at Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Enagic is represented by:

     Brian Joel Levy, Esq.
     STITES & HARBISON, PLLC-ATLANTA
     303 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2800
     Atlanta, GA 30308-3345
     Telephone: (404) 739 8800
     Facsimile: (404) 739 8870
     E-mail: blevy@stites.com


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Accused of Jacking Up Natural Gas Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has
accused two utilities of conspiring to drive up energy costs in
New England in a multi-year scheme that affected millions of
customers.

The lawsuit filed in Boston federal court alleges Eversource
Energy and Avangrid Inc. used their market power to "unlawfully
jack up" consumer electric bills, according to a statement from
attorney Tom Sobol, of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP. Court records show 12 people are listed as plaintiffs.

The suit seeks $3.6 billion in damages -- the amount it claims
customers were overcharged.  It accuses the utilities of
manipulating the amount of natural gas available to power plants
by reserving more than they needed from 2013 to 2016.  The scheme
raised electric prices by at least 20 percent for New England
residents, affecting 7.1 million electricity customers.

"Not since Enron's greedy heyday during the California energy
crisis, nearly two decades ago, have American energy markets been
manipulated for private profit at such expense to everyday
electricity consumers," the suit says.

Eversource, headquartered in Boston and Hartford, and New Haven-
based Avangrid own multiple electric utility subsidiaries
throughout New England.

The two companies are being investigated by the Connecticut Office
of Consumer Counsel and the state's public utilities authority on
charges of market manipulation.

Eversource has denied any wrongdoing.  A spokesman for Avangrid
said the company "will vigorously defend against these claims."
[GN]


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Fiorentino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARYANN FIORENTINO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-60801-BB (S.D.
Fla.), asks the Court to certify a class defined as:

     All persons in the state of Florida who FRS sent a
     collection letter containing an out of statute statement
     substantially similar to the Letter attached to the
     Complaint as Exhibit A.

Maryann Fiorentino moves the Court for an order certifying the
Class, to secure redress for the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  She alleges that the case
arises from the Defendant's unlawful use of false information to
induce consumers into making payments on stale or "zombie debts,"
thereby, reviving the statute of limitations.

Ms. Fiorentino also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and her attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PV2Tuud7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  ezebersky@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408-4520
          Telephone: (561) 692-6013
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: darren@cloorg.com


FIRST DATA: Certification of Class and Sub-Class Sought in "Fox"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM FOX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST DATA
MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-80949-DMM (S.D. Fla.),
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Class and Sub-
Class:

   * Class:

     All persons and entities in the United States who paid First
     Data (a) a lease fee for credit card processing equipment
     and/or (b) the purported insurance fee.

   * Sub-Class:

     All persons and entities in Texas who paid First Data (a) a
     lease fee for credit card processing equipment and/or (b)
     the purported insurance fee.

Excluded from the Classes are: (a) Defendant and any entities in
which Defendant have a controlling interest; (b) Any entities in
which Defendant's officers, directors, or employees are employed
and any of the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of Defendant; (c) The Judge(s) to whom this case or any
transferred case is assigned and any member of the Judges'
immediate family and any other judicial officer assigned to this
case; (d) Persons or entities with claims for personal injury,
wrongful death, and/or emotional distress; (e) All persons or
entities that properly execute and timely file a request for
exclusion from the Class; (f) Any attorneys representing the
Plaintiff or the Class; and (g) All governmental entities.

The Plaintiff further asks to be appointed as a Class
Representative and for the appointment of John Yanchunis, Esq., of
Morgan & Morgan, Complex Group and Tiffany Yiatras, Esq., of
Consumer Protection Legal, LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Telephone: (314) 541-0317
          Facsimile: (855) 710-7706
          E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Kevin Do, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. First
Financial Security, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-07608-
SVW-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an
order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
      prejudice; and

   2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
      matter jurisdiction without prejudice.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts
regarding the amount of their individual breach of contract
damages, let alone facts demonstrating that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. In fact, the TAC asserts only that
they "have each been harmed in an amount calculable by First
Financial." Dkt. 117, TAC 34. Based on First Financial's records,
the total amounts attributable to the individual Plaintiffs for
the period May 10, 2014 to September 1, 2017 are far less than
$75,000: Plaintiff Kevin Do - $17,707.15; Plaintiff Tata
Insixiengmay - Tran - $21,653.64; and Plaintiff Polly Luangaphay -
$59,701.10. Dkt. 143, Caine Decl. The Plaintiffs also cannot
aggregate their claims to allege a controversy exceeding $75,000."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6WYNmL95


FIRST RESOLUTION: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Islas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Greg N. Stivers grants preliminary approval of a class
settlement in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH L. ISLAS, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST
RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP., UNIFUND CCR, LLC, and UNIFUND CCR
PARTNERS, Case No. 1:16-cv-00141-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.).

For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the classes of
persons described in the Settlement Agreement and defined as:

   a. Class I: Prejudgment Court Costs Class

      All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution
      Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR
      Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest,
      agents, employees, or representatives (collectively,
      "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a
      judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or
      did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between
      September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement,
      prejudgment court costs from the consumer without filing a
      bill of costs itemizing the prejudgment court costs
      Defendants attempted to recover, or actually recovered.

      Subclass A: Those members of Class I against whom
      Defendants actually collected prejudgment court costs
      without filing a bill of costs itemizing the costs
      recovered from the consumer.

      Subclass B: Those members of Class I against whom
      Defendants attempted to, but did not collect prejudgment
      court costs without filing a bill of costs itemizing the
      costs sought to be recovered from the consumer.

   b. Class II: Judgment Lien Filing Fee Class

      All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution
      Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR
      Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest,
      agents, employees, or representatives (collectively,
      "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a
      judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or
      did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between
      September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, a
      post-judgment filing fee paid by Defendants to file a
      "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a
      judgment entered against the consumer.

      Subclass A: Those members of Class II against whom
      Defendants actually collected a post-judgment filing fee
      paid by Defendants to file a "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon
      Real Estate" pursuant to a judgment entered against the
      consumer.

      Subclass B: Those members of Class II against whom
      Defendants attempted to, but did not collect a
      post-judgment filing fee paid by Defendants to file a
      "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a
      judgment entered against the consumer.

   c. Class III: Garnishment Fee Class

      All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution
      Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR
      Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest,
      agents, employees, or representatives (collectively,
      "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a
      judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or
      did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between
      September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, a
      post-judgment garnishment fee paid by Defendants to either
      a garnishee or a clerk of court to file a garnishment to
      enforce a judgment entered against a consumer.

      Subclass A: Those members of Class III against whom
      Defendants actually collected a post-judgment garnishment
      fee paid by Defendants to file a garnishment to enforce a
      judgment entered against the consumer.

      Subclass B: Those members of Class III against whom
      Defendants attempted to, but did not collect a
      post-judgment garnishment fee paid by Defendants to file a
      garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against the
      consumer.

   d. Class IV: Prejudgment Interest Rate Class

      All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution
      Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR
      Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest,
      agents, employees, or representatives (collectively,
      "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a
      judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or
      did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between
      September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement,
      prejudgment interest at a rate or amount in excess of 8%
      per annum simple interest.

      Subclass A: Those members of Class IV against whom
      Defendants actually collected prejudgment interest at a
      rate or in an amount in excess of 8% per annum simple
      interest on a judgment entered against the consumer.

      Subclass B: Those members of Class IV against whom
      Defendants attempted to, but did not collect prejudgment
      interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of 8% per
      annum simple interest on a judgment entered against the
      consumer.

   e. Class V: Post-Judgment Interest Rate Class

      All Kentucky consumers against whom First Resolution
      Investment Corp., Unifund CCR, LLC and or Unifund CCR
      Partners and or their respective predecessors in interest,
      agents, employees, or representatives (collectively,
      "Defendants"), filed a lawsuit in Kentucky, obtained a
      judgment against the consumer, and attempted to collect or
      did collect via a post-judgment garnishment between
      September 1, 2015 and the date the Court signs the order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement,
      post-judgment interest in a rate or amount in excess of the
      statutory rate of 12% per year, compounded annually, from
      the date of judgment.

      Subclass A: Those members of Class V against whom
      Defendants actually collected post-judgment interest at a
      rate or in an amount in excess of the statutory rate of 12%
      per year, compounded annually, on a judgment entered
      against the consumer.

      Subclass B: Those members of Class V against whom
      Defendants attempted to, but did not collect post-judgment
      interest at a rate or in an amount in excess of the
      statutory rate of 12% per year, compounded annually, on a
      judgment entered against the consumer.

The Court has also set this schedule:

   -- Defendants must provide the Class List to Class Counsel on
      December 29, 2017;

   -- Class Notice must be mailed by January 13, 2018;

   -- Deadline for Filing and Serving Requests for Exclusion is
      on March 26, 2018;

   -- Deadline for the filing of Motion for Final Approval and
      other papers in support of Settlement is on April 5, 2018;
      and

   -- Deadline for filing and serving objections is on April 20,
      2018.

The Fairness Hearing will be held on May 10, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pF287rSs

The Plaintiff and the Class are represented by:

          James H. Lawson, Esq.
          LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC
          115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 473-6525
          Facsimile: (502) 473-6561
          E-mail: james@kyconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          James R. McKenzie, Esq.
          JAMES R. MCKENZIE ATTORNEY, PLLC
          115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 371-2179
          Facsimile: (502) 257-7309
          E-mail: jmckenzie@jmckenzielaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph N. Tucker, Esq.
          R. Brooks Herrick, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 540-2360
          E-mail: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com
                  brooks.herrick@dinsmore.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Fuller" Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is captioned as Janis Fuller,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, the
Defendant; LVNV Funding, LLC; and Resurgent Capital Services,
L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07901 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman.

Frontline Asset is a collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


GLASS NICKEL: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement agreement in
the case captioned CHAD ROGERS-COXHEAD, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLASS NICKEL PIZZA
CO. d/b/a MADISON'S DOUGH BOYS, INC., Defendant, No. 16-cv-706-wmc
(W.D. Wis.).

Pursuant to an unopposed motion, plaintiff Chad Rogers-Coxhead
seeks final approval of a settlement of the hybrid action, which
alleges wage and hour violations (1) as collective actions under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and (2) as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 under the wage and hour laws of Wisconsin.

Based on the fairness hearing, plaintiff's written submissions,
the fact that only one class member excluded himself or herself
from the settlement and that no class members objected, and that
slightly over half of the class members opted into the FLSA class,
as well as the record in this case as a whole, the Court concludes
that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and that the
settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute of FLSA provisions.

The settlement agreement contemplates an enhancement payment of
$10,000 to the named plaintiff.  Without diminishing Rogers-
Coxhead's role, a $10,000 enhancement fee strikes the Court as
excessive in light of the limited period of time of this lawsuit
and the fact that Rogers-Coxhead's involvement stopped short of
having to be deposed.  Accordingly, the court will reduce the
enhancement payment to $7,500.

Also before the Court is class counsel's petition for attorneys'
fees and costs, which will be approved.  The named plaintiff
originally agreed to a 33% contingency fee plus costs in this
case, but that is not controlling.  Indeed, after adjustments,
class counsel seeks approximately 30% of the claimed settlement
fund, $56,129.55.

While this amount suggests a smaller award may be appropriate, the
Court is convinced that an award reflecting approximately 30% of
the claimed settlement amount is reasonable in light of (1) class
counsel's efforts in evaluating the claims' merits, initiating
suit, engaging in discovery and preparing for and participating in
mediation of this lawsuit, including review of time records,
sufficient to bring this case to an early resolution; (2) the
factual and legal uncertainties that remain with respect to
plaintiff's claims; (3) market rates; (4) fee awards for similar
hybrid FLSA and Rule 23 class actions in this district; and (5) a
resolution of the entire case in the best interest of the class
members, none of whom have objected to the fee request.
Accordingly, the court will award attorneys' fees in the total
amount of $56,129.55.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6cz877 from
Leagle.com.

Chad Rogers-Coxhead, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Marie
Madden -- cmadden@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C..

Chad Rogers-Coxhead, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Zoeller --
dzoeller@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C..

Glass Nickel Pizza Co., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Modl
-- mmodl@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP.


GLOBAL TEL: Inmates' Class Action Over Phone Services Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Martin, writing for IndyStar, reports that in an effort to
reduce recidivism, the Indiana Department of Correction is
negotiating with a company to provide tablets packed with
educational and entertainment materials for all inmates, free of
charge.

But there's a catch: Most services would carry a hefty price for
access, according to a bid recommended by the state -- with a 10-
percent cut of the profits shared with IDOC.

Renting a movie? $8.

Buying a music subscription? $25 per month, compared to $10 for
the average consumer buying Spotify.

Even podcasts, which are free on the outside, would cost $9 per
month.

"It's unjustifiable to me how they can have prices that are this
high knowing what alternatives are out there for people who are
not in prison," said Kristin Casper, public affairs officer for
the Indiana Public Defender Council.

Background: Why every Indiana inmate could soon have a tablet

The higher prices are part of the business model for companies
supplying tablets in prisons and jails.  States and counties --
and their taxpayers and inmates -- generally aren't charged for
the hardware.  But money spent on entertainment offerings become
profits for the companies.

"This isn't supposed to be a source of revenue for the
department," William Wilson, an IDOC executive director, told
IndyStar in March.

Another reason for the increased cost is to create a secure
network for the tablets and accompanying software.  It's not as
simple as connecting your iPad to a home's wireless internet
network.

But those music subscriptions and movie rentals add up -- to
potentially millions each year -- joining other pricey for-pay
services like phone calls, emails and video visitations.

State officials are recommending IDOC select a bid from Virginia-
based Global Tel Link, which boasts on its website of providing
services to more than 1.8 million offenders across more than 2,300
correctional facilities, including 32 state correction
departments.  The company's tablet services are already being
provided in Indiana's Allen and Marion county jails.

Global Tel Link would expect to generate $6.5 million each year
through the tablets program in Indiana prisons, according to the
bid, primarily from inmates' thousands of entertainment purchases.

IDOC, meanwhile, would collect $750,000 for its cut.

How that money would be spent, including whether it would be used
more generally for inmates, is unclear. IDOC declined to discuss
the revenues during contract negotiations.

IDOC officials highlight the benefits of a tablets system, such as
providing educational, legal and self-help materials for those
seeking betterment while behind bars.  Potential content could
include GED study materials and substance abuse and anger
management programming.

The entertainment options, which also would include games and
books, could be used to reward good behavior.

"Historically, corrections has always been based on consequences,
but what we've learned is that sometimes through positive
reinforcement you gain better performance, better behavior,"
Wilson said.

Such efforts are championed as a potential solution to lowering
the state's recidivism rate, which stood at 37 percent in 2016,
according to IDOC data.

Ms. Casper, of the Indiana Public Defender Council, isn't so sure.

She noted that movies and music aren't the only services that cost
money.  Comparable to IDOC's existing fees, Global Tel Link would
charge $9.95 for holding a video visitation between an offender
and loved ones.

To reduce recidivism, Casper said, the state should make it as
easy as possible for inmates to stay in touch with families back
home.  Charging fees for a visitation makes it harder.

And it's not the inmates picking up the costs, Ms. Casper said.
It's their families, many who can't afford to pay for phone calls,
emails and visitations.

"They've already gone through enough because their loved one is in
prison. Now they have to pay these fees," Ms. Casper said.

And while Global Tel Link is providing services to numerous
correctional facilities, the company recently came under fire
regarding its relationship with Mississippi's corrections system.

In February, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood accused Global
Tel Link of bribing the state's former corrections commissioner,
Chris Epps, in exchange for no-bid contracts.  Mr. Hood said the
company defrauded taxpayers by using consultants to pay bribes and
kickbacks to Epps.

Mr. Epps was sentenced to almost 20 years in federal prison,
according to a U.S. Attorney news release.  Global Tel Link agreed
to a $2.5 million settlement with the state, Mr. Hood announced in
August.

Global Tel Link declined an interview request and instead shared
an August statement: "We have always acted with integrity," CEO
Brian Oliver said.  "So why are we settling? We can spend the next
three years focused on innovation or litigation. We choose
innovation."

A class-action suit, filed on behalf of the inmates who paid to
use the company's phone services, is pending in federal court in
Mississippi, according to online court records.

In Indiana, Global Tel Link joined three other companies in
bidding for the tablets contract. The Indiana Department of
Administration scored the proposals based on companies' business
and technical abilities, and on the costs for processing trust
fund payments, according to state documents released to IndyStar.

Global Tel Link gained the agency's recommendation. That bidding
process serves as a safeguard against what happened in
Mississippi, an IDOC spokesman told IndyStar.

IDOC said negotiations will begin soon.

PROPOSED PRICES FOR TABLET SERVICES

Photograph: $0.38

Email: $0.38

Video gram: $1.14

Video visitation: $9.95

30-day streaming music subscription: $24.99

30-day gaming subscription: $5.99

30-day digital books subscription: $3.99

30-day audiobooks subscription: $19.99

30-day TV audio subscription: $6.99

30-day podcast subscription: $9.99

Movie rentals for 48 hours: $7.99

Source: Global Tel Link's bid to Indiana (August 2017)
[GN]


HAJ INC: Court Defers Ruling on FLSA Suit Pending "Morris"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order staying the case captioned JOHN RALPH,
Plaintiff, v. HAJ, INC.; D.O.S. PIZZA, INC.; NORTH COUNTY PIZZA,
INC.; PIZZAFELLA, LLC.; SLAMMED PIZZA, INC.; and SLAMMED PIZZA
JR., INC., Defendants, Case No. 17cv1332 JM(JMA) (S.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Defendant D. O. S.
Pizza, Inc., moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff John Ralph's
claims.

Plaintiff John Ralph filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in
this federal question collective action by alleging four claims
for relief: (1) violation of the FLSA; (2) violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 2802; (3) violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1194,
1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and IWC Minimum Wage Order and Wage Order
No. 5; and (4) Cal. Bus & Prof Code Section17200.  Even though
Plaintiff is directly employed DOS, he alleges that Defendants,
collectively, operate about 74 Domino's Pizza stores in Southern
California, and operate as a single integrated enterprise and
jointly operate the Domino's restaurants as they maintain
interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations,
common management and common ownership and financial control.

During Plaintiff's employment, the parties signed an Alternative
Dispute Resolution Agreement.  The FAA provides that a written
provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising
will be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract.
Plaintiff contends that he is unsophisticated and, therefore, the
arbitration provision is not enforceable. Plaintiff's argument
lacks factual and legal support, the Court held.

The FAC and Plaintiff's declaration establish that he has worked
for DOS as a delivery driver for about four years, graduated from
high school, and completed one year of junior college. Further,
Plaintiff fails to establish that he suffers from a disability or
other condition which would undermine his capacity to enter into
an agreement. Plaintiff also fails to establish his legal argument
that being unsophisticated is somehow a defense to arbitration.

Under California law, the unconscionability doctrine provides a
defense to arbitration. However, Plaintiff does not argue that
California's unconscionability doctrine applies under the
circumstances nor does he provide an appropriate analysis.
In sum, the court provisionally grants the motion to compel
arbitration of all state law claims, but not the FLSA claim.

After Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2017), the
parties dispute whether a FLSA claim is subject to arbitration.
Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Morris, Plaintiff
argues that his FLSA claim is not subject to arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit concluded, based upon the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq., and the
FLSA, that the statutory concerted action provisions afford
employees substantive rights that cannot be waived by a class or
concerted action waiver provision in an arbitration agreement. In
essence, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ability of an
injured employee to bring a concerted action is part and parcel of
a FLSA claim. As noted by the dissent in Morris, the opinion is at
odds with the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which hold that
the NLRA and FLSA do not invalidate collective action waivers in
arbitration agreements.

In sum, the Court concludes that resolution of the issues on
appeal in Morris will directly impact the course of this
litigation.  Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on the
arbitrability of the FLSA claim until after the Supreme Court
issues its opinion in Morris.

In light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, the court
stays this entire action. While a stay is an extraordinary remedy,
a short stay is presently warranted as the Supreme Court is likely
to determine whether FLSA claims are subject to arbitration.

The court provisionally grants the motion to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff's state law claims, defers ruling on the motion to
compel arbitration of the FLSA claim pending resolution of the
Morris case, and stays the entire action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yqngcz from Leagle.com.

John Ralph, Plaintiff, represented by Malcolm Roberts --
mroberts@landayroberts.com -- Landay Roberts LLP.

John Ralph, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Alan Potashnick --
markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro hac vice &
Richard M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP,
pro hac vice.

North County Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J.
Zaller -- azaller@vzrlaw.com -- Van Vleck Zaller & Robinson LLP,
Lisa J. Borodkin -- lborodkin@vzrlaw.com -- Van Vleck, Zaller &
Robinson LLP & Nicole D. Kirkilevich -- nkirkilevich@vzrlaw.com --
Van Vleck Zaller & Robinson LLP.

Slammed Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard
-- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Aimee E.
Axelrod -aimee.axelrod@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis.

Slammed Pizza Jr. Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel
Bernard, Jackson Lewis P.C. &Aimee E. Axelrod, Jackson Lewis.
HAJ, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa J. Borodkin, Van Vleck,
Zaller & Robinson LLP.

D.O.S Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa J. Borodkin, Van
Vleck, Zaller & Robinson LLP.


HAMILTON, OH: Robinson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL ROBINSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and a class of others similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v, SHERIFF JIM NEIL, individually and In his capacity
as Sheriff of Hamilton County Ohio, Case No. 1:17-cv-00652-SJD
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of:

   "all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center,
   including the following two (2) subclasses: (1) all inmates
   detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center awaiting trial
   and who are not serving time pursuant to a judgment of
   conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment; (2) all
   inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center who are
   serving time pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a crime
   punishable by imprisonment."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Newman, Esq.
          215 E. 9th St. Ste. 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-639-7000
          E-mail: robertnewman@newman-meeks.com

               - and -

          Michael J. O'Hara, Esq.
          O'HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN & CASSIDY
          25 Town Center Blvd. Ste. 201
          Covington, KY 41017
          Telephone: 859-221 2000
          E-mail: mohara@oharataylor.com

               - and -

          Marc D. Mezibov, Esq.
          MEZIBOV & BUTLER
          615 Elsinore PI. Ste. 105
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621 8800
          E-mail: mdm@mezibov.com


HARRY'S NURSES: "McFarlane" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE MCFARLANE, VELMA PALMER, and CLAIRE WILLIAMS, the
Plaintiffs, v. HARRY' NURSES REGISTRY, HARRY'S HOMECARE INC., and
HARRY DORVILIEN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06350-PKC-PK
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover for unpaid wages,
improperly withheld wages, unpaid overtime wages, improper pay
stubs, and all other statutorily required compensation owed to
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are employees by
Defendants as Licensed Practical Nurses. The Plaintiffs worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked. The Plaintiffs' work
duties required neither discretion nor independent judgment. The
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for overtime
hours worked. The Defendants did not require Plaintiffs to keep
track of their time, nor did Defendants utilize any time tracking
device such as punch cards, that accurately reflected actual hours
worked. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with
notification, in either the form of posted notices or other means,
regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL.

Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. operates as a provider of nursing
care.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Hilferty, Esq.
          Matthew Crawford, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. WHITE
          570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 380 0038


HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN UTNE, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 22, 2018, at 1:30
p.m. for an order:

   1. certifying classes of:

      Rounding Class:

      "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or
      non-exempt positions in California at any time since March
      8, 2012, for whom each such individual's total hours paid
      since March 8, 2012 is less than the total hours recorded
      as worked in Home Depot's timekeeping system";

      Lock-in Class:

      "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or
      non-exempt positions in Home Depot stores in California at
      any time since March 8, 2012, and who worked at least one
      shift ending after the time that the Home Depot store was
      scheduled to close to the public for the evening.

      Hourly Employee Class:

      "all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or
      non-exempt positions in California at any time since March
      8, 2012."

   2. appointing the Plaintiff John Utne as representative of the
      proposed classes or later proposed and approved by the
      Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; and

   3. appointing Shaun Setareh, Thomas Segal and H. Scott Leviant
      of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel; and

   4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
      Court's certification Order.

This is wage and hour class action lawsuit involving over 130,000
Home Depot hourly employees in California. The Plaintiff alleges
and can establish that Home Depot (1) underpaid approximately
74,000 employees by rounding down recorded time worked, (2)
underpaid all employees for off-the-clock work occurring at the
start of their shifts, and (3) underpaid tens of thousands of
employees for off-the-clock work occurring during shifts ending
after Home Depot stores closed to the public for the night.
Despite the size, this matter is well suited to class
certification because the violations are systematic, the policies
are uniform, and the aggregate harm is massive.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Shaun Setareh, Esq.
            Thomas Segal, 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
                    thomas@setarehlaw.com
                    scott@setarehlaw.com


HOWARD ZUCKER: Turano et al. Bid to Amend Complaint Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIE TURANO, LEONARD TURANO, and GEMMA
SAMELE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health, the Defendant, Case No. 17-
cv-3397 (ADS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the
      complaint;

   2. instructing Plaintiffs' counsel to serve a copy of the
      amended complaint, ECF 16-3, on all parties within 15 days
      from the date of this order. The amended complaint must
      include an updated caption that reflects the additional
      Plaintiffs; and

   3. directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the Plaintiffs'
      motion to certify class as the amended complaint adds new
      putative class representatives.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have exhibited no evidence of bad
faith or undue delay. This is the Plaintiffs' first request to
amend the complaint. Also, the Defendant is not prejudiced by the
proposed amendments as the Plaintiffs are not seeking to change
the definition of the proposed class and discovery is in its
infancy. Finally, "[n]or can it be said that the amendments the
plaintiff[s] seek[] to make are futile." Feliciano v. Circulation
Promotion & Res., Inc., No. 98-civ.-8727, 1999 WL 1102798, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 1999); accord Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead
Bd. Of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002). Therefore,
since there has been no undue delay, bad faith, futility or
prejudice to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to
amend the complaint is granted.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Goldman, Esq.,
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.,
          Elizabeth Jois, Esq.,
          Ben W. Taylor, Esq.,
          Stewart Dearing, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dorothy O. Nese, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          200 Old Country Road, Suite 460
          Mineola, NY 11501


IC SYSTEM: Wins Summary Judgment, "Cornette" Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marcia G. Cooke entered an omnibus order on cross motions
for summary judgment filed in the lawsuit titled FAUSTIN CORNETTE
v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and M.D. NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-24454-MGC (S.D. Fla.).  Judge Cooke:

   -- denies Plaintiff Faustin Cornette's Motion for Partial
      Summary Judgment;

   -- grants Defendant I.C. System, Inc.'s Motion for Summary
      Judgment; and

   -- grants Defendant MD Now's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed and all pending motions, if
any, are denied as moot, according to Judge Cooke.  Judge Cooke
adds that a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure shall issue concurrently.

The case arises out of a $37.79 collection charge added to the
Plaintiff's account as a result of unpaid medical costs.  MD Now
contracts with ICS to collect unpaid debt from consumers in
Florida on its behalf.

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


ILLINOIS BRICK: Consumers Treated Unjustly in Price-Fixing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Automotive News reports that a core principle of the American
legal system is that all are equal before the law.  But equality
is missing in the matter of distributing more than $1 billion to
dealers and consumers harmed by a supplier price-fixing scandal.

Class-action settlement funds collected from suppliers -- fallout
from the largest antitrust case in U.S. history -- can only be
paid to consumers and dealers in 29 states and the District of
Columbia.

Those in 21 other states are not eligible to file a claim or
receive compensation, even though they were also injured by price
fixing and bid rigging.  The reason? A 40-year-old U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that prohibited, short of state-level intervention,
the payment of damages to secondary buyers of items involved in
antitrust activity.

In the 1977 case, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the court found
that contractors could file claims because the price of bricks
they purchased had been jacked up through anti-competitive
behavior. But homeowners who hired the contractors using the
bricks had no federal claim.

After that decision, 29 states and the District of Columbia passed
so-called repealer statutes to allow their citizens to recover
damages as secondary purchasers.  Twenty-one other states took no
action.

The resulting patchwork of unequal protection is unfair, as is
evident by the auto parts settlement distributions.  A consumer or
auto dealer in Texas or Ohio or 19 other states shouldn't be
denied compensation because of where they live or transact
business.

To fix this, we could wait for the court to take up another case
to overturn Illinois Brick.  Or voters -- and dealers -- in the 21
states currently locked out could petition their state legislators
to pass the same repealer statutes that those in the 30 other
jurisdictions already live under. [GN]


INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Ark. Supreme Court Remands Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion remanding to the
Union County Circuit Court the case captioned INDUSTRIAL WELDING
SUPPLIES OF HATTIESBURG, LLC; AIRGAS, INC.; AND AIRGAS USA, LLC,
Appellants, v. JOHN PINSON AND LARRY MURPHY ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV-
17-86 (Ark.).

Appellants Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC,
Airgas, Inc., and Airgas USA, LLC, bring an interlocutory appeal
of the Union County Circuit Court's order certifying a class
action filed by appellees John Pinson, Larry Murphy, and others
similarly situated (employees).

The employees were employed by Industrial Welding in one of their
fifteen locations in Arkansas, Mississippi, or Alabama.  On
appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court abused its
discretion in granting the motion for class certification because
(1) the employees failed to meet the commonality requirement by
presenting proof that common issues of law or fact exist; (2)
common issues of law and fact do not predominate over individual
issues; and (3) a class action is not the superior method of
resolving this controversy.

The employees alleged claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment based on Industrial Welding's failure to compensate the
employees for earned but unused vacation time. Specifically, the
employees argued that each member of the class worked for
Industrial Welding during the 2011 calendar year and earned
vacation that was due to be paid in 2012.

The employees filed their amended motion for class certification
to certify a class of "All persons who were employed by Industrial
Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC on December 31, 2011, were so
employed for at least one year prior thereto, and continued to be
so employed until Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC
on March 31, 2012."

A hearing on the motion for class certification was held. During
the hearing, the circuit court granted the employees' motion for
class certification.

On appeal, the appellants argue that the circuit court abused its
discretion in granting the employees' motion for class
certification. Specifically, as to the breach-of-contract claim,
the appellants contend that the employees failed to demonstrate
commonality, predominance, and superiority.

An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites
of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and the court finds that the
questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  An order
certifying a class action must define the class and the class
claims, issues, or defenses.

The state Supreme Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
all elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure
and class certification is appropriate in this case.

The Court further finds that the named Plaintiffs, John Pinson and
Larry Murphy, have demonstrated sufficient interest in and
knowledge of this case such that they are each appropriate to
serve as class representative in this matter.

The Court has also considered the pleadings and other filings, as
well as the presentations in hearings before this Court, and finds
that the attorneys for the Plaintiffs have sufficient expertise
and experience to serve as class counsel in this matter.

The requirements in Rule 23(b), compel more than a cursory mention
of the six criteria or bare conclusions that those criteria have
been satisfied. Here, the state Supreme Court simply has the bare
conclusion that the "Plaintiffs have satisfied all elements of
Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and class
certification is appropriate in this case."

This finding is clearly insufficient. After the 2006 amendment to
Rule 23, Rule 23 and Rule 52 will continue to intersect. However,
both rules also impose separate and distinct requirements. Rule 23
requires, at a minimum, that the circuit court define the class
claims, issues, or defenses.

In contrast, Rule 23 is not as exacting as Rule 52, which imposes
a heightened standard because it requires the circuit court to
make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here, even
in the absence of a Rule 52 motion, the circuit court is not
relieved from its duty to comply with the minimum requirements of
Rule 23.

Accordingly, because the order granting class certification fails
to comply with Rule 23(b), the state Supreme Court remands with
instructions to enter an order that complies with Rule 23.
Because the state Supreme Court remands, it is unable to address
the remaining points on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmz5923 from Leagle.com.

Dover Dixon Horne PLLC, by: Thomas S. Stone -- tstone@ddh-ar.com -
- Todd Wooten  -- twooten@ddh.law -- and Carl F. "Trey" Cooper,
III -tcooper@ddh-ar.com -for appellant.

McMath Woods P.A., by: Charles D. Harrison and Neil Chamberlain,
711 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 for appellees.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces "Mack" Suit in Calif. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Paper
Company. The case is captioned as Mack, Jamal on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and International Paper
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00221622-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017).

The International Paper Company is an American pulp and paper
company, the largest such company in the world. It has
approximately 55,000 employees, and it is headquartered in
Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade St.
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833


JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Stays Discovery in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC.,
JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC,
JOHN DOES 1-5 and NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-
FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.), the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Order
granting in part Defendant's Second Motion to Stay and Bifurcate
Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, in that all
discovery is stayed pending a determination of the Jackson
Hewitt's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

Plaintiff initially filed a class action complaint against Jackson
Hewitt Inc., Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Astro Tax
Services LLC, John Does 1-5, and Naveen Mathur, pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Junk Fax
Prevention Act (JFPA).  The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff
received an unsolicited facsimile from Defendants. Plaintiff also
alleged that the facsimile did not display a proper opt-out notice
as required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200, and that at least 40
other recipients were sent the same advertisement.

Because there is a pending motion by Jackson Hewitt challenging
the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, which
after taking a preliminary peek the Court finds meritorious, the
Court will again stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss.  As the Court noted in its previous Order, the Court is
not making a determination at this time on the merits of the
Jackson Hewitt Defendants' dispositive arguments; however, based
on its review of the relevant pleadings and motions, the Court
finds that delaying discovery until the Court rules on whether
Plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action will cause Plaintiff
little harm and promote judicial efficiency. For the reasons
discussed in its previous Order, the Court will again decline to
make a bifurcation determination pending a ruling on Jackson
Hewitt's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jbz743 from Leagle.com.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -
- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice.
Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly
-- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Jackson Hewitt Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr.
-- dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De
Simone -- Michael.desimone@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP &
Thomas Justin Cunningham icunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord,
LLP.

Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Defendant, represented by
Dale A. Evans, Jr., Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone,
Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham, Locke Lord, LLP.
Astro Tax Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke -
- jarred.duke@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC.
Naveen Mathur, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke, Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney, PC.


JASON WOLFE: Fails to Pay Wages, "Garcia" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
HARLEM GARCIA 7812 Lewis Chapel Cir. Apt 304 Lorton, VA 22079; and
PATRICIO AGUIERRE 8535 Braxted Lane Manassas, VA 20110, the
Plaintiffs v. JASON WOLFE 41056 Pacer Lane Paeonian Springs VA
20129 and HERMAN JAYNE 14561 Marlow St. Gainesville VA 20155, the
Defendants, Case No. 2017-15402 (in the Circuit Court for Fairfax
County, Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime,
minimum wages liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under the common law of Virginia and Section I6(b) of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, for the time worked per week by
Plaintiffs in excess of 40 hours, Defendants paid Plaintiff no
overtime wages or complete overtime wages, thereby violating the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendants should have paid
Plaintiffs at the rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked each week in excess of 40.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          Sutter & Terpak, PLLC
          7540A Little River Turnpike, First Floor
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: 703 256 1800
          Facsimile: 703 991 6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Judgment in "Goldemberg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Pamela A. Sweeney filed an appeal from a District Court
order and judgment dated November 1, 2017, in the lawsuit titled
Goldemberg, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.,
Case No. 13-cv-3073, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court has certified classes of consumers that purchased Aveeno
Active Naturals products in New York, California and Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Goldemberg, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-3875, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Objector-Appellant Pamela A. Sweeney appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Michael Goldemberg, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Annie Le, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; and Howard Petlack, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is
represented by:

          Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq.
          KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 715-9132
          Facsimile: (212) 715-8000
          E-mail: hweinberger@kramerlevin.com


JPAY INC: Faces "Defazio" Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPay, Inc. The case
is captioned as ANTHONY DEFAZIO, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPAY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10212-KM-SCM (D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

JPay is a privately held corrections-related service provider
based in the United States with its headquarters in Miramar,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JULIE JONES: "O'Connor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MYKA O'CONNOR, the Plaintiff, v. JULIE
JONES, ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01387-TJC-JBT (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to certify class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=avt6B1Gp

The Plaintiff appears pros se.


KEMPER CORPORATION: "Barrett" Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chester Barrett, James White, Mary
White, Monroe Ford, Robert Bartley Turner, Vertola Stubbs, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. United Insurance
Company of America, Inc. and The Kemper Corporation, Case No.
STSV2017000113, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017 from the State Court
of Liberty County, to the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of Georgia (Savannah). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:17-cv-00215-WTM-GRS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon, Judge William T. Moore, Jr.

United Insurance Company of America, Inc. offers life and health
insurance products and services. It offers life, fire, accident,
and health insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Bartley Turner, Esq.
          SAVAGE & TURNER, PC
          P.O. Box 10600
          102 E. Liberty Street, 8th Floor
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 231 1140
          Facsimile: (912) 231 9157
          E-mail: bturner@savagelawfirm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Campbell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE
          Suite 1200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 870 4600
          Facsimile: (404) 872 5547
          E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com


KENTUCKY: State Appeals Ruling in Minor's Suit
----------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY (EX REL.
VICKI YATES BROWN GLISSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY), the
Appellant v. EZRACLAYCOMB (A MINOR, BY & THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND,
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND), the Appellee, Case No. 2017-CA-001770 (Ken.
Ct. of Appeals, Nov. 1, 2017), is an appeal filed before the
Kentucky Court of Appeals, from a lower court decision in a class
action, Case No. 17-CI-00708 (Cir. Ct., Oct. 30, 2017).[BN]

Attorneys for Appellant:

          Mark Stephen Pitt, Esq.
          S Chad Meredith, Esq.
          Matthew Kuhn, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
          700 Capital Ave, Suite 101,
          Frankfort, KY 40601

               - and -

          Johann F Herklotz, Esq.
          Catherine E York, Esq.
          Matthew H Kleinert, Esq.
          CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,
          OFFICE OF LEAGAL SERVICES,
          275 East Main Street 5w-B-
          Frankfort, KY 40621

Attorneys for Appellee:

          J. Guthrie True, Esq.
          TRUE GUARNIERI AYER, LLP,
          124 West Clinton Street,
          Frankfort, KY 40601


               - and -

          Paul A. Casi II, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & CASI, PLLC,
          440 South Seventh Street, Suite 100,
          Louisville, KY 40203


KERRY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit over Sensitive Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMO FERNANDEZ, ARTURO CORDONA, SERGIO DURAN, RODRIGO PUENTES,
and ISAIAS VILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KERRY INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-14831 (in the Circuit of Cook County Ill., Nov.
7, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and
storage of Plaintiffs' and proposed Class's sensitive biometric
data.

The case is an action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of similarly-
situated individuals, namely, all Illinois citizens who performed
work for Kerry in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly
collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained or disclosed by
Kerry.

Kerry Inc. produces and distributes food and beverage ingredients,
concentrates, and flavor products for the food and beverage
industry in the United States and internationally. It offers
dairy, meat, cereal, culinary, sweet, beverage, and infant
nutrition products; flavors, natural extracts, taste modulators,
and authentic culinary foundations; and nutritional actives and
functional systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone (312) 763 6880


KEW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lomeli" Suit over Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA LOMELI, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEW ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC682728 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar., 2017), seeks
to recover penalties and/or damages for Defendant's failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


KINDRED HEALTH: "Al-Najiar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TINA MARIE FATIAH AL-NAJIAR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06166-PSG-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 26, 2018, for an
order to certify a class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario. Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  jdesario@nourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com


KONA GRILL: Cedeno Renews Motion to Certify Class of Sous Chefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MIGUEL CEDENO Individually,
and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who Consent to
Their Inclusion in a Collective Action v. KONA GRILL, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and KONA MACADAMIA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01039-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), renews
his motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Action and order notice to be sent to members of a
class of all current and former sous chefs of Kona Grill,
Inc. and Kona Macadamia, Inc. after June 1, 2014, who worked
overtime but were not paid overtime wages.

This is his second attempt at conditional certification in this
case, Mr. Cedeno states.  He says the Court denied his initial
motion because (1) he did not provide sufficient evidence that
other employees desired to opt-in to the action, and (2) he failed
to establish that the proposed class of putative Plaintiffs were
similarly situated.

Mr. Cedeno contends that he has remedied these two issues, as the
proposed class has been narrowed to the singular position of "sous
chef," and three other individuals have filed Consent to Sue
affidavits with the Court.  As such, he argues, this case now
meets the standard for conditional certification as outlined in
the Court's Order.

The Court should also order the Defendants to provide his counsel
with the last known addresses of all putative class members and
the telephone number, date of birth, and last four digits of the
social security number of any potential class members whose notice
is returned by the post office, so that his counsel may provide
effective notice to the class, Mr. Cedeno asserts.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=igDm4p8U

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq.
          BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
          2023 Constitution Blvd.
          Sarasota, FL 34231
          Telephone: (941) 923-7700
          Facsimile: (941) 923-7736
          E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura E. Prather, Esq.
          Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 512-3225
          Facsimile: (813) 512-3211
          E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com
                  Andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com


LAMBTON COLLEGE: Students to Pursue Class Action Over Strikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarnia Observer's Tyler Kula, Canadian Press and London Free
Press, report that Lambton College paramedic student Jade Flay has
been biding her time, reading her textbooks and trying to stay up
to date over the last few weeks.

She's ready to go back to school.

"I'm so excited," she said Sunday, hours before Queen's Park
passed back-to-work legislation, ending a strike that's seen
500,000 students at 24 Ontario colleges out of class since
Oct. 15.

Bill 178 passed with Liberal and Progressive Conservative support
-- New Democrats voted against it, calling it anti-worker -- over
a rare weekend session in the legislature, making way for students
to head back to class.

At Lambton College in Sarnia, operations were resuming on Nov. 13
and classes Nov. 14, college president Judith Morris said in a
written statement to students.

The legislation also pushes outstanding disputes between the
12,000 striking professors, librarians and counselors and their
employers to binding mitigation-arbitration.

"We support and appreciate the government intervening and working
with all parties to introduce back to work legislation,"
Ms. Morris said.

The fall term at Lambton has been extended to Jan. 12, with
classes breaking Dec. 22 to Jan. 2, her statement reads.

There's no official fall exam week, reading week has been
cancelled, and the second term is scheduled to start Jan. 22 and
finish April 27, it says.

The April end date is the same as before the strike began.

Flay, a 20-year-old St. Thomas native studying in her first year
of Lambton's paramedic program, said she's confident she can
salvage her year.

"I have a super-amazing set of teachers, so I trust that they're
going to put us in a position where we can . . . learn what we
need to learn," she said.

Losing reading week is stressful, she said.

"Because that week is meant for students' mental health."

It's also unclear what will happen with placements and the finer
details of her program, she said.

"I think we're going to get a bunch of emails tomorrow morning."

One thing the resolution doesn't change, she said, is a potential
class-action lawsuit by students from each of the strike-affected
colleges. Recently filed with the College Employer Council via
Toronto-based law firm Charney Lawyers, the potential suit seeks
damages for breach of contract and breach of the Ontario Consumer
Protection Act.

"It doesn't really change our opinion on the money situation,"
said Flay, the spokesperson at Lambton on the issue.

"We are still going forward with the class-action lawsuit."

No dates have been set, she said. [GN]


LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Asks to Certify Tipped Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK SHAFFER et al. v.
LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD., d/b/a PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD., Case
No. 5:16-cv-01193-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), ask the Court to
conditionally certify the action as Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action on behalf of a class consisting of:

     all current and former employees of Defendant who were
     tipped employees performing dual jobs in excess of 20% of
     their workweek between September 8, 2014 and September 8,
     2017.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to direct the Defendant to
provide contact information for potential class members and to
approve both the notice and the accompanying Web site proposed by
the Plaintiffs' counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1c5KjwbK

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard L. Steele, Jr., Esq.
          STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          500 Dallas, Suite 3440
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659-2600
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2601
          E-mail: hsteele@steele-law-group.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lionel M. Schooler, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          1401 McKinney Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 308-4156
          E-mail: lschooler@jw.com


LELAND STANFORD: "Lagos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Thomas Lagos, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Board of Trustees
of The Leland Stanford Junior University, a California
corporation, and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-
cv-04524-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Thomas Lagos will move the Court on
January 18, 2018, for an Order certifying a class of:

   "all persons residing in the United States (including all
   territories and other political subdivisions of the United
   States) as to whom The Board of Trustees of The Leland
   Stanford Junior University or any of its related companies
   procured or caused to be procured a consumer report for
   employment purposes on or after August 18, 2013 to the date of
   the judgment entered herein without first providing a clear
   and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer at any
   time before the report was procured or caused to be procured,
   in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a
   consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes,
   including without limitation those persons who executed the
   Defendant's standard form to procure a consumer report."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that he be appointed Class
Representative and that Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and The
Blanchard Law Group, APC be appointed to Class Counsel.

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

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
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          LONNIE C. BLANCHARD, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


LTI TRUCKING: Hearing on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case
titled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. LTI Trucking Services, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-07190 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- status hearing was held and continued to May 2, 2018, at
      9:30 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to May 2, 2018;

   -- Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss shall
      be filed by January 12, 2018;

   -- Defendant's reply in support shall be filed by January 25,
      2018;

   -- The court will rule electronically;

   -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed
      by May 31, 2018; and

   -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendant's answer and
      the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
      program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yiTn4ttr


LULAROE LLC: Refuses to Accept Return of Merchandise, Patton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JINI PATTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LULAROE, LLC d/b/a LuLaRoe, a
California Limited Liability Company, LLR, Inc., a Wyoming
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover damages and for other relief based on LuLaRoe's
unfair and deceptive practices involving its refusal to accept the
return of merchandise and issue refunds as promised.

According to the complaint, pursuant to and in reliance upon
Defendants' stated policy, Plaintiff placed orders and accepted
unwanted inventory from Defendants, believing that the unwanted
inventory could be returned for a full refund at no cost or
expense, the Plaintiff faced greater than expected challenges in
selling Defendants' products. The market for Defendants' product
had simply become too saturated with Consultants who were trying
to move the inventory that they were requested to perpetually
purchase. As a result of Defendants' conduct on May 30, 2017,
Plaintiff had no choice but to quit the company, or she would
continue to lose money purchasing inventory over which she had no
control and could not sell. She was unable to attain recovery of
her investments in Defendants' products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South B Road Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867 2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685 0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Ronald Jay Smolow, Esq.
          THREE PONDS LANE
          Newtown, PA 18940-3001
          Telephone: (215) 579 1111
          Facsimile: (215) 579 7949
          E-mail: ron@smolow.com


LUNA CYCLES: "Damoiseaux" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DAMOISEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff, v. LUNA CYCLES, LLC, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No.BC682463 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime wages under the California Labor Code

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully misclassified
its employees as independent contractors to avoid properly paying
them for their services and providing them with all benefits to
which employees are entitled, including breaks and overtime,
despite the fact they were clearly employees. The Plaintiff and
class members performed duties including, but not limited to,
helping to assemble bikes, assisting in mailing of bike kits and
batteries for those kits, and performing other company tasks at
Defendants' location.

Luna is a company that makes and sells kits to turn regular bikes
into electric motorized bike and also sells electric motorized
bikes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, 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
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


MARKHAM, IL: Faces "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017-CH-14835 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County Ill., Nov.
7, 2017), seeks declaratory relief to avoid Defendant's unjust
enrichment collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to
comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing
red light cameras.

The case is a class action arising from Defendant's unlawful
collection of money from vehicle owners through its Photo
Enforcement Program. The Defendant has been issuing red light
violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its
failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law
governing red light cameras. First, Defendant has failed to
publish on its website the location of all red light cameras
within the City. Second, Defendant has failed to make available to
the public and publish on its website a statistical analysis
assessing the safety impact of each red light camera within its
boundaries. Because Defendant has failed to comply with these two
mandatory provisions, the violation notices it has issued are void
and the fines and fees it collected must be returned.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606 0500


MARKHAM, IL: Faces 2nd "Murphy" Suit over Collection of Fines
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017-CH-14834 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County Ill., Nov.
7, 2017), seeks declaratory relief to avoid Defendant's unjust
enrichment collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to
comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing
red light cameras.

The case is a class action arising from Defendant's unlawful
collection of money from vehicle owners through its Photo
Enforcement Program. The Defendant has been issuing red light
violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its
failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law
governing red light cameras. First, Defendant has failed to
publish on its website the location of all red light cameras
within the City. Second, Defendant has failed to make available to
the public and publish on its website a statistical analysis
assessing the safety impact of each red light camera within its
boundaries. Because Defendant has failed to comply with these two
mandatory provisions, the violation notices it has issued are void
and the fines and fees it collected must be returned.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606 0500


MARRIOTT INT'L: Vazquez Moves to Certify National COBRA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ALINA VAZQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-00116-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla.),
moves the Court to certify the case as a class action for this
National COBRA Putative Class:

     All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health
     Plan who were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant in the form
     attached as Exhibit A during the applicable four-year
     statute of limitations period, as a result of a qualifying
     event as determined by Defendant who did not elect
     continuation coverage.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Alina Vazquez alleges that the
Defendant violated the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 ("COBRA") by failing to provide her and the putative
class members with the required notices of their right to
continued health care coverage under COBRA and as to the sub-
class, with certain information in Spanish.

Ms. Vazquez also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, to appoint Luis A. Cabassa, Esq., and Brandon J.
Hill, Esq., of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Chad Justice of
Black Rock Trial Lawyers LLC, as class counsel, and to allow the
counsel to notify the Class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5PrI1Qhk

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
          BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS
          201 South Westland Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 254-1777
          Facsimile: (813) 254-3999
          E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com


MCGOUGH BUS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Bus Drivers & Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Smith, Desiree Laws-Burton, Diana Melendez, Monaee Dotson
Cooper, Nancy Rodriguez, Teri Briggs, Marisol Pabon, Joyce Butts,
Brielle Wynn, Gladys Singleton and Anessa Brown Muns ask the Court
to conditionally certify the lawsuit captioned Edwin Smith, et aux
v. McGough Bus Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08192-JHR-
AMD (D.N.J.), as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Named Plaintiffs filed the action on November 20, 2015,
asserting that they were subject to unlawful conduct by Defendant
McGough Bus Company, Inc., wherein the Company failed to pay them
for all hours worked and for overtime compensation for certain
overtime hours worked.  The Named Plaintiffs are similarly
situated to all other non-exempt employees, who worked for the
Defendant in the capacity of bus driver or bus aide.

The Named Plaintiffs also seek the Court to facilitate notice to
all non-exempt employees, who worked in the capacity of bus driver
or bus aide for the Defendant since three years preceding the
filing of the instant action.  The Named Plaintiffs further ask
that the Court compel the Defendants to provide, in electronic and
importable format, the names, addresses, and phone numbers of each
member of the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HlY9xoyk

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Patrick Cronin, Esq.
          CRONIN BERKOWITZ, LLC
          10000 Lincoln Drive, East, Suite 202
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 350-6060
          Facsimile: (856) 751-1677
          E-mail: sberkowitz@berkpc.com


MDL 2545: Medical Mutual Seeks to Certify RICO Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, the Plaintiff, v.
ABBVIE INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT PRODUCTS, INC., SOLVAY
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, AUXILIUM,
INC., GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, OSCIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ELI
LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, INC., ACRUX COMMERCIAL PARTY LTD.,
ACRUX DDS PARTY LTD., ACTAVIS PLC, ACTAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,
ANDA, INC., and ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08857 (N.D. Ill.), MMO asks the Court to certify a
Nationwide Class and an Ohio State Subclass.

The case is part of the multi-district litigation, IN RE:
TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2545.

The Nationwide Class is defined as with respect to MMO's claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act:

   "all third-party payors ("TPPs") in the United States and its
   territories from January 1, 2000 through January 31, 2014,
   that have (1) covered the cost of one or more of Defendants'
   TRT drug products through insurance or employee benefit
   programs, and (2) included one or more of Defendants' TRT drug
   products on a formulary. TPPs include insurance companies,
   healthcare benefit plans, health maintenance organizations,
   union health and welfare plans, self-funded employer health
   and welfare plans, and employee or retiree health plans."

   Excluded from the class are:

   a. The Defendants and their officers, directors, employees,
      predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest,
      assignees, affiliates and subsidiaries;

   b. All governmental entities, except for government funded
      employee, retiree and Medicare Part D plans provided
      through private insurance companies;

   c. All pharmaceutical wholesalers or distributors that
      purchased one or more of the Defendants' TRT drug products
      for purposes of resale; and

   d. Pharmacy Benefit Managers.

The Ohio State Subclass is defined as with respect to MMO's claim
of negligent misrepresentation under Ohio common law:

   "all third-party payors ("TPPs") in Ohio from January 1, 2000
   through January 31, 2014, that have (1) covered the cost of
   one or more of Defendants' TRT drug products through insurance
   or employee benefit programs, and (2) included one or more of
   Defendants' TRT drug products on a formulary. TPPs include
   insurance companies, healthcare benefit plans, health
   maintenance organizations, union health and welfare plans,
   self-funded employer health and welfare plans, and employee or
   retiree health plans."

   Excluded from the class are:

   a. The Defendants and their officers, directors, employees,
      predecessors-in-interest, successors-ininterest, assignees,
      affiliates and subsidiaries;

   b. All governmental entities, except for government funded
      employee, retiree and Medicare Part D plans provided
      through private insurance companies;

   c. All pharmaceutical wholesalers or distributors that
      purchased one or more of the Defendants' TRT drug products
      for purposes of resale; and

   d. Pharmacy Benefit Managers.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Eo7RsshS

Attorneys for Plaintiff Medical Mutual of Ohio:

          Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
          Layne C. Hilton, Esq.
          Marshall L. Perkins, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763

               - and -

          W. Scott Simmer, Esq.
          Thomas J. Poulin, Esq.
          SIMMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          The Watergate, Suite 10-A
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 333 4562
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1039

               - and -

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177

MDL Co-Lead Counsel:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700

               - and -

          Trent B. Miracle, Esq.
          Brendan A. Smith, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259 2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259 2251

               - and -

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah N. Lynch, Esq.
          SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON PSC
          909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite No. 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578 4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578 4440


MESILLA VALLEY: Hrng on Ratliff's Bid to Certify Cont'd to May 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case
captioned Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Mesilla Valley Transportation,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07192 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- status hearing held and continued to May 2, 2018, at
      9:30 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to May 2, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be filed by
      December 15, 2017;

   -- Parties' joint oral motion for leave to file motion and
      response in excess of fifteen pages is granted to three
      additional pages;

   -- Plaintiff's response shall be filed by January 16, 2018;

   -- Defendants' reply in support shall be filed by January 30,
      2018;

   -- The Court will rule electronically;

   -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed
      by August 1, 2018; and

   -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendant's answer and
      the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
      program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=goqWc3wB


MICHAEL BILLINGS: Dean Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled URIKA DEAN, on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BILLINGS
(d/b/a) MIDWAY ISLAND, and MIDWAY ISLAND, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-CV-01459-M (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional class certification of:

      "current and former exotic dancers who worked for
      Defendants and were collectively subject to Defendants'
      intentional misclassification of Dancers as independent
      contractors in order to deny payment of minimum wages and
      other employment benefits owed to them, as well as the
      unlawful tip sharing policy imposed by Defendants requiring
      Dancers to share their gratuities with Defendants and other
      employees";

   2. approving proposed notice and consent forms;

   3. directing Defendants to identify putative class members
      within a reasonable time frame; and

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice and consent
      forms to the proposed class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=39xx9CYD

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jdw@federmanlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class in "Arnold" Suit v. DOC
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL ARNOLD, the Plaintiff, v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, the Defendant, Case No. 4:13-cv-14137-LVP-MKM (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon .Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order:

   1. granting Arnold's motion for class certification and
      certifying class with respect to claims in Arnold's first
      amended complaint:

      "all Jewish individuals confined with the Michigan
      Department of Corrections who are designated by the prison
      system to receive kosher meals."

   2. designating Arnold as the representative plaintiff for that
      certified class; and

   3. designating Daniel E. Manville and Michael Steinberg as
      lead class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tr9nmxar


MTC FINANCIAL: "Manos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN MANOS, TARA BORRELLI, AND JESSIE MANOS,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the PLAINTIFFS, v. MTC FINANCIAL INC; MALCOLM CISNEROS, ALC;
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC; CITIMORTGAGE INC; FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-5, the DEFENDANTS, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01142-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff ask the Court
to certify classes and subclasses:

FDCPA Assignment Class:

   "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
   State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
   the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2)
   against whom Defendants or their agents recorded a standard
   form assignment of deed of trust to Ditech (3) when, at the
   time of recordation, Fannie Mae owned the loan, note, and deed
   of trust; and (4) the debt was incurred primarily for
   personal, family, or household purposes. The period covered is
   from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class certification
   determination";

FDCPA Corporate Advances Class:

   "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
   State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
   the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2)
   against whom Defendants or their agents collected, or
   attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, post-
   acceleration late fees, flat legal fees, 'corporate advances'
   for property inspections and appraisals, and/or unspecified
   bankruptcy/foreclosure expenses, fees, and costs; (3) when the
   loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (4) the servicer was Ditech; and
   (5) the debt was incurred primarily for personal, family, or
   household purposes. The period covered is from 18 June 2015 to
   the time of the class certification determination."

   The Corporate Advances Class should include the following sub-
   classes:

   Late Fees Subclass: class members assessed post-acceleration
   late charges;

   Foreclosure Fees Subclass: class members assessed fixed legal
   fees, trustee fees, unspecified bankruptcy/foreclosure
   expenses, fees, and costs in relation to a non-judicial
   foreclosure"; and

   Preservation Fees Subclass: class members assessed flat fees
   for repeated property inspections and/or appraisals after
   default;

TILA/FDCPA Force-placed Insurance Class:

   "(1) all borrowers charged for a force-placed hazard insurance
   policy placed on a property located within the State of
   California (2) where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the
   servicer was Ditech; and (4) the debt was incurred primarily
   for personal, family, or household purposes. The period
   covered is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class
   certification determination.

RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Delinquency Class:

   "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
   State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
   the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2)
   where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was
   either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where the servicer
   reported the loan to Fannie Mae as code 80 (Breach Letter
   Sent) or its equivalent. The period covered is from 18 June
   2012 to the time of the class certification determination.

   The Class should be subdivided into the following sub-classes:

   Ditech subclass: class members whose mortgages were directly
   serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree Servicing;
   and

   CitiMortgage subclass: class members whose mortgages were
   directly serviced by CitiMortgage

RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Insurance Class:

   "(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
   State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
   the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2)
   where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was
   either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where Defendants mailed
   to the borrower notice of the placement of force-placed
   insurance and a certificate of insurance identifying the
   servicer as the insured-mortgagee. The period covered is from
   18 June 2012 to the time of the class certification
   determination."

   The Class should be subdivided into the following sub-classes:

   Ditech subclass: all class members whose mortgages were
   directly serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree
   Servicing; and

   CitiMortgage subclass: all class members whose mortgages were
   directly serviced by CitiMortgage.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicolette Glazer Esq.
          Larry R Glazer Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER
          1875 Century Park East No. 700
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407 5353
          Facsimile: (310) 407 5354
          E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com
                  larry@glazerandglazer.com


NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: "Jia" Suit Moved to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Helen Jia, an individual, and
Sarah Sormillon, an individual and all those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Nerium International LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company; Nerium Skin Care Inc., a Texas Corporation;
Natural Technology Inc., doing business as: Naturtech; Jeff Olson,
an individual; Renee Olson, an individual; Amber Olson Rourke, an
individual; Michael Shouhed, an individual; and Does 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05686, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-03057-C to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings.

Nerium International offers exclusive age-defying skincare and
wellness products with patented ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake J Lindemann, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC
          433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279 5269
          Facsimile: (310) 300 0267
          E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mike Margolis, Esq.
          MARGOLIS & TISMAN LLP
          444 South Flower Street Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683 0300
          Facsimile: (213) 683 0303
          E-mail: margolis@winlaw.com

               - and -

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
          Naki Margolis, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239 3465
          Facsimile: (424) 239 3398
          E-mail: atagvoryan@blankrome.com
                  hbrown@blankrome.com
                  nmargolis@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S Jacobson, Esq.
          Andreas Becker, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808 7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808 7897
          E-mail: jjacobson@KelleyDrye.com
                  abecker@kelleydrye.com


NEW BOSTON PIE: Court Certifies Driver Class in "Brayak" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BADR BRAYAK, AHMED GHARRARI, HAMID KACI,
ADIL ABDELJALIL, KHALID AKOUHAR, MOHAMED ESSAFI, and TAOUFIK
BOUCHRIT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. NEW BOSTON PIE, INC., and CHARBEL RIZKALLAH, Case No.
1:16-cv-12322-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Rya W. Zobel entered
an order allowing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to
the "Driver Class" on the inside work and delivery charge claims
(Counts I and II), and denying as to the "Overtime Class" (Count
V).

The Driver Class is certified as:

   "all individuals who have worked as delivery drivers for the
   defendants at any time from November 19, 2013 to the present."

The court also appoints Stephen Churchill and Brian Casavant of
Fair Work, P.C., as class counsel based on their qualifications
and experience. The court further appoints the named plaintiffs as
class representatives. By December 7, 2017, after conferring with
defendants' counsel, class counsel shall submit a proposed Notice
to the Class -- which shall include a description of the claims in
this case, the class, the class representatives, and class counsel
-- and propose to the court a plan for providing notice of the
certification of the class to the class. Defendants may file any
response to the proposed notice and plan no later than fourteen
days thereafter. A hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2018, at
2:30 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=88GHfpUG


NGL TRANSPORTATION: Yoo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAM YOO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NGL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, and DOES
17 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC682160 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California
law.

The Plaintiff and the Class were required to work in excess of
eight hours in any day and/or more than 40 hours during the
workweek. The Plaintiff and the Class were not compensated for
this time at the rates required by Labor Code Section 510.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and the rest of the Class are entitled to
recover from Defendants unpaid overtime that they incurred within
the applicable limitations period until the date that the Class is
certified, interest, together with their reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

NGL Transportation is a full logistics service provider that has
been in business since 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          N. Cory Barari, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657 1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297 1775


NPAS SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.4-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NPAS SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-80393-RLR (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to
preliminarily approve the parties' settlement and enter the
proposed order.

Mr. Johnson also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as
class counsel.

After months of contested litigation, Plaintiff Charles T. Johnson
and Defendant NPAS Solutions, LLC, have reached an agreement to
resolve the class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  At issue in this case are autodialed calls made by NPAS
Solutions intended for consumers alleged to owe health care-
related debts, but that reached parties different from those NPAS
Solutions was trying to call.

Mr. Johnson and his counsel firmly believe the settlement -- which
calls for the creation of a $1.432 million, non-reversionary
common fund from which participating class members will receive a
pro-rata portion after deducting attorneys' fees, expenses, and
notice and administration costs -- is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the class, particularly in
light of the substantial risks and uncertainties of protracted
litigation.

The Agreement defines a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure comprised of:

     All persons in the United States who (a) received calls from
     NPAS Solutions, LLC between March 28, 2013 and the date of
     preliminary approval that (b) were directed to a phone
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (c) for
     which NPAS Solutions' records contain a "WN" designation,
     and (d) were placed using an automatic telephone dialing
     system.

Participating class members will receive a pro-rata share of the
$1.432 million settlement fund, after expenses are deducted.
Thus, the common fund equates to approximately $8 for each
potential class member -- a result that compares favorably to
similar TCPA settlements, the Plaintiff asserts.

Subject to Court approval, the costs of notice and administration,
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and an incentive award
for him also will be deducted from the $1.432 million fund, Mr.
Johnson tells the Court.  To that end, NPAS Solutions agrees not
to oppose an incentive award to Mr. Johnson of $6,000.  He will
also seek the reimbursement of class counsel's costs and expenses
not to exceed $6,000, and an award of attorneys' fees not to
exceed 30% of the common fund.

The Agreement also requires a robust notice program, including
direct mail notice to each class member who can be identified
through NPAS Solutions' call records.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wRj4Qafm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maura K. Monaghan, Esq.
          Jacob W. Stahl, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 909-6836
          E-mail: mkmonaghan@debevoise.com
                  jwstahl@debevoise.com

               - and -

          Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
          Alan D. Lash, Esq.
          Lorelei J. Van Wey, Esq.
          Michael L. Ehren, Esq.
          LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
          Miami Tower
          100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131-2158
          Telephone: (305) 347-4040
          Facsimile: (305) 347-4050
          E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com
                  alash@lashgoldberg.com
                  lvanwey@lashgoldberg.com
                  mehren@lashgoldberg.com


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Jan. 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. ("Omega" or
the "Company") (NYSE:OHI) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-09024, is on behalf
of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Omega securities, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Omega securities between
February 8, 2017, and October 31, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and amount of shares purchased.

Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust ("REIT")
that invests in income producing healthcare facilities, including
long-term care facilities located in the United States and the
United Kingdom.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) financial and operating
results of certain of the Company's operators were deteriorating;
(ii) as a result, certain of the Company's operators were
experiencing worsening liquidity issues that were significantly
impacting the operators' ability to make timely rent payments;
(iii) as a result, certain of the Company's direct financing
leases were impaired and certain receivables were uncollectible;
and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about Omega's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 26, 2017, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release entitled "Omega Announces Second Quarter 2017
Financial Results; Increased Dividend Rate for 20th Consecutive
Quarter."

On the next day, July 27, 2017, the Company held a conference call
to discuss its second quarter results.  On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $1.35 per share, or 4%, to close at
$32.10 per share on July 27, 2017, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is acknowledged
as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities,
and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L.
Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the
Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions.
Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
[GN]


OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled APRIL KITTEL, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OXNARD, A
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY; SYLVIA PANIAGUA, IN IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; ERIC SONSTEGARD, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, the DEFENDANTS,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06709-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court on January 8, 2018 for certification of the
following classes and subclasses:

   CLASS NO. 1 "Oxnard Police Department Disabled Employees
   Class"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have worked in the Oxnard Police
   Department; and (ii) Have been absent from work at the Oxnard
   Police Department because of medical reasons; and (iii) Did
   not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department due to a
   disability at a time when they were, with respect to such
   disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the
   meaning of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (42
   U.S.C. sections 12102), section 504 of the Federal
   Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. section 794(a)), or the
   California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and (iv) (A) Did
   not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by reason
   of the Oxnard Police Department's alleged 100% healed policy;
   or (B) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department
   by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's allegedly
   discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory
   Policy on Modified Duty.

   Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of
   Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over
   the formulation or implementation of the Oxnard Police
   Department's policies and practices alleged in this action to
   violate Title I of the Americans With ADA), the Federal
   Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA.;

   CLASS NO. 2 "City Disabled Employees Class"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work because
   of medical reasons; and (ii) Did not return to work due to a
   disability at a time when they were, with respect to such
   disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the
   meaning of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of
   the Federal Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA, and (iii) (A) Did
   not return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard's allegedly
   discriminatory implementation of its allegedly discriminatory
   Policy on Reasonable Accommodation; or (B) Did not return to
   work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City
   of Oxnard of uniform pretextual job descriptions; or (C) Did
   not return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory
   use by the City of Oxnard of work restrictions attributed to a
   Qualified Medical Examiner compared to work restrictions
   attributed to the employee's treating physician. (D) Did not
   return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard waiting to
   initiate an interactive process for their reasonable
   accommodation until the employee's disability is declared to
   be "Permanent and Stationary" in a worker's compensation
   proceeding related to the disability"

   Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of
   Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over
   the formulation or implementation of the City of Oxnard's
   policies and practices alleged in this action to violate the
   ADA, Sec. 504, or FEHA.;

CLASS NO. 3 "Class Of City Employees Subjected To An Employer-
Controlled Fitness For Duty Examination"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work due to
   a disability at a time when they were, with respect to such
   disability, qualified individuals with a disability within the
   meaning of Title I of the ADA, the Federal Rehabilitation Act,
   or the FEHA, and (ii) (A) At any time during the absence from
   work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a
   fitness-for-duty examination when the City already had
   sufficient medical documentation from the employee's own
   medical or health care provider to satisfy any of its business
   need for disability inquiry or medical examination of the
   employee; or (B) At any time during the absence from work,
   were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for-
   duty examination; and (I) Who underwent such fitness-for-duty
   examination; and (II) Requested disclosure to the employee of
   the results of the examination; and (III) Were not provided
   the results of the examination";

   CLASS NO. 4 "Oxnard Police Department Disabled Employees Class
   - Discrimination Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have worked in the Oxnard Police
   Department; and (ii) Have been absent from work at the Oxnard
   Police Department because of medical reasons; and (iii) (A)
   Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police Department by
   reason of the Oxnard Police Department's alleged 100% healed
   policy; or (B) Did not return to work at the Oxnard Police
   Department by reason of the Oxnard Police Department's
   allegedly discriminatory implementation of its allegedly
   discriminatory Policy on Modified Duty"

   Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of
   Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over
   the formulation or implementation of the Oxnard Police
   Department's policies and practices alleged in this action to
   violate Title I of the Americans With ADA, the Federal
   Rehabilitation Act, or the FEHA;

   CLASS NO. 5 "City Disabled Employees Class - Discrimination
   Under 34 Cfr section 100.7(E)"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work because
   of medical reasons; and (ii) (A) Did not return to work by
   reason of the City of Oxnard's allegedly discriminatory
   implementation of its allegedly discriminatory Policy on
   Reasonable Accommodation; or (B) Did not return to work by
   reason of the allegedly discriminatory use by the City of
   Oxnard of uniform pretextual job descriptions; or (C) Did not
   return to work by reason of the allegedly discriminatory use
   by the City of Oxnard of work restrictions attributed to a
   Qualified Medical Examiner compared to work restrictions
   attributed to the employee's treating physician. (D) Did not
   return to work by reason of the City of Oxnard waiting to
   initiate an interactive process for their reasonable
   accommodation until the employee's disability is declared to
   be "Permanent and Stationary" in a worker's compensation
   proceeding related to the disability"

   Excluded from the Class are all presently working City of
   Oxnard management employees with supervisory authority over
   the formulation or implementation of the City of Oxnard's
   policies and practices alleged in this action to violate the
   ADA, or FEHA.

   CLASS NO. 6 "Class Of City Employees Subjected To An Employer-
   Controlled Fitness For Duty Examination Class - Discrimination
   Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)"

   "all persons who have been employed by the City of Oxnard at
   any time after 1974, including, but not limited to, those
   employees who have been absent from work while receiving
   either workers compensation or short or long-term disability
   insurance benefits, and (i) Have been absent from work for
   medical reasons; and (ii) (A) At any time during the absence
   from work, were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a
   fitness-for-duty examination when the City already had
   sufficient medical documentation from the employee's own
   medical or health care provider to satisfy any of its business
   need for disability inquiry or medical examination of the
   employee; or (B) At any time during the absence from work,
   were directed by the City of Oxnard to undergo a fitness-for-
   duty examination; and (I) Who underwent such fitness-for-duty
   examination; and (II) Requested disclosure to the employee of
   the results of the examination; and (III) Were not provided
   the results of the examination; and

   CLASS NO. 7 "Class Of All City of Oxnard Employees -
   Discrimination Under 34 Cfr Section 100.7(E)"

   "all persons currently employed, or in the future will be
   employed, by the City of Oxnard who, during such employment,
   may now be, or in the future will become qualified individuals
   with disabilities under the ADA, Sec. 504, or FEHA and, at
   such time, need or will need the City of Oxnard to timely
   engage in a good faith interactive process with them for their
   reasonable accommodation within the meaning of these statutory
   provisions."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=artGJ4qc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Salzwedel, Esq.
          144 Yucca Ln.
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805) 497 4511
          Facsimile: (805) 497 3014
          E-mail: williamsalzwedel@yahoo.com


PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Collins"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing
the claims in the case captioned MICHAEL COLLINS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-3395
(7th Cir.), as time-barred.

The question before the Seventh Circuit is whether a dismissal
with prejudice also strips a case of its class-action character.

On a summer day in June 2007, a police officer in the Village of
Palatine issued a parking ticket to Michael Collins.  When Collins
returned to his car later that day, he found the bright yellow
ticket under his car's windshield wiper blades.  The ticket listed
personal information about him, including his name, address,
driver's license number, date of birth, sex, height, and weight.
Collins claims that the display of his personal information
violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  So on March
29, 2016, he sued the Village of Palatine on behalf of himself and
a proposed class.

Palatine moved to dismiss, arguing that Collins's claim was time-
barred because the statute of limitations resumed when the
district court dismissed Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d
597, 599-600 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), which had a similar
scenario.  Collins responded that the dismissal on timeliness
grounds was inappropriate at the pleadings stage, and even if
procedurally proper, the suit was timely because the limitations
period was tolled until the Supreme Court denied Senne's petition
for certiorari.

He also separately moved to certify a class.

The District Court agreed with Palatine that Collins's claim was
time-barred and granted the motion to dismiss.  The judge
summarily denied the motion for class certification, apparently on
mootness grounds, though he did not give a reason.

Here, timeliness turns on the question of tolling.  If tolling
ended and the limitations clock resumed when the Senne suit was
dismissed, Collins's claim is untimely.  But if tolling continued
until the appeals in Senne were exhausted, then Collins's claim is
still live.  This is a pure question of law: At what point does
class-action tolling end?

Here, the dismissal of Collins's claim made the class
certification question irrelevant.  When the plaintiff's own claim
is dismissed, he "can no longer be the class representative."  At
that point either another class representative must be found or
the suit is kaput.  No one stepped forward to pick up the spear
after Collins's claim was dismissed.  That makes sense.  Because
the limitations period was not tolled during the pendency of the
Senne appeal, it's not likely that any class member has a timely
claim.  That's not to say that no one could step forward to bring
a class claim.  If there are class members for whom the statute of
limitations has not run, the district court's summary denial of
class certification would not bind them.

The limitations clock on Collins's claim resumed when the Senne
class action was dismissed with prejudice prior to class
certification.

The Seventh Circuit adopts a simple and uniform rule: Tolling
stops immediately when a class-action suit is dismissed -- with or
without prejudice -- before the class is certified.

Accordingly, his claim is time-barred, the Seventh Circuit held.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's November 16, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73me22l from
Leagle.com.

Martin J. Murphy -- mmurphy@davisyoung.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Brandon K. Lemley -- blemley@querrey.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Michael E. Kujawa -- mkujawa@schainbanks.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01612-
WED (E.D. Wisc), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UX1ixWGP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERSONNEL STAFFING: "Haack" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY and RYAN BANTA, and
all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, DANIEL S. BARNETT, individually,
DAVID BARNETT, individually NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE dba COMPLETE
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE or "CNI", COMPLETE FENCE, INC., US
INSTALLERS, dba NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE, and RAYMOND HOHE,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class under Fair Labor
Standards Act:

   "all individuals who were employed by or who are currently
   employed, by one or more of the Defendant named in this
   action, who have performed work as a fence installer of either
   commercial or residential fences, at any time during the five
   year period."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZJrwV0Yo

Plaintiffs withdrew a previously filed Motion to Certify Class.

The case is an action to redress Defendants' systematic,
companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiffs as piece workers
and systematic underpayment of journeyman fence installers in
violation of the rate Defendants agreed to pay them with Local 63
of the Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Union and
Defendants' failure to pay them overtime wages or pay them
overtime wages at the correct amount.

A copy of the prior Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LCgQIxo1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Steven Platt, Esq.
          ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD
          180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago IL, 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456 0285
          E-mail: lsplatt@rsplaw.com

               - and -

          Mr. William Provenzano
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J.
          Provenzano & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          1580 S. Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 530
          Libertyville, IL 60048
          Telephone: (847) 816 6588
          E-mail: wjprovenzano@ameicatech.net


PHILLIP KNOWLES: Certification of Stone Detailers Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PEDRO MORFIN-ARIAS, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated employee, the Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIP
KNOWLES, DBA CEFRAMIC & STONE DESIGN, the Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-06114-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on Dec. 21, 2017, to certify a class of:

   "all persons who were, are, employed by Defendant Philip
   Knowles dba Ceramic & Stone Design in Santa Clara County,
   California, from October 23, 2013 through the date of final
   judgment as hourly non-administrative employees working
   installing stone detailers and drivers paid on an hourly basis
   stone."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert David Baker, Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251 3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251 3401


PORSCHE FINANCIAL: "Cox" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEVEN MICHAEL COX, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORSCHE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PORSCHE LEASING LTD., and PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23409-DPG
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify two Classes:

Inaccurate Disclosure Class:

   "persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the
   standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants
   and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a
   positive monetary value that was not assigned a positive Net
   Trade-in Allowance. This Class only covers individuals whose
   leases either are outstanding or were terminated within four
   years before the filing of this action"; and

Overcharge Class:

   "persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the
   standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants
   and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a
   positive monetary value that was not properly credited as a
   Capitalized Cost Reduction. This Class only covers individuals
   whose leases either are outstanding or were terminated within
   four years before the filing of this action."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint himself as Class
Representative, and appoint his attorneys Ronald P. Weil and Mark
A. Schweikert (WEIL SNYDER SCHWEIKERT & RAVINDRAN, P.A.) and
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, F. Jerome Tapley, and Adam W. Pittman (CORY
WATSON, P.C.) as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(1).

This putative class action seeks to remedy Porsche's unlawful
leasing practices of inflating its profit by "swallowing" its
lessees' equity in their trade-in vehicles on the face of their
standard form Porsche (TM) leases. A consumer's "trade-in value
[is] 'swallowed'" by a lessor's failure "to list the value of a
consumer's trade-in vehicle in a contract" and "credit the
consumer with the value of the trade-in vehicle."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a3SPsZKq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Schweikert, Esq.
          Ronald P. Weil, Esq.
          WEIL SNYDER SCHWEIKERT RAVINDRAN, P.A.
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 850
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372 5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372 5355
          E-mail: rweil@weilquaranta.net
                  mschweikert@weilquaranta.net

               - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Hirlye R. Lutz, Esq.
          Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, Alabama 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328 2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324 7896
          E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
                  rultz@corywatson.com
                  apittman@corywatson.com


POSTMATES INC: "Winns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE ANNE WINNS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES INC., a California
Corporation, DOES 1-10, individuals, and DOES 11-20, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-562282 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2,
2017), seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against
Defendant among other things, unpaid wages and gratuity, interest,
attorneys' fees, penalties, costs and expenses pursuant to
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been
non-exempt employees working for Defendant in California within
the meaning of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs and Class
Members have not been paid all earned wages. The Defendant
willfully withheld, collected and received 15 cents from
Plaintiffs and Class Members' wages every pay period that
Defendant direct deposited earned wages into individual bank
accounts.

Postmates Inc. is a logistics company that operates a network of
couriers who deliver goods locally. Postmates is closely compared
to other online delivery services such as Uber, Lyft, or
Waiter.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amir Mostafavi, Esq.
          MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC
          11835 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 1055
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 473 1111
          Facsimile: (310) 473 2222


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Case Settlement Proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL
PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company;
and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Court entered an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to
      whom Professional Placement Services, LLC mailed an initial
      written communication to collect a debt, between January
      27, 2016 and February 17, 2017, which states "Re:
      Partnership Community Health Center."

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   3. appointing Stern Thomasson LLP as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement
      Administrator to send notice of the Settlement to Class
      Members and administer the Settlement;

   5. approving Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that
      it be mailed to the last known address of Class Member as
      shown in PPS's business records;

   6. directing Settlement Administrator to mail the Class Notice
      to Class Members on or before December 5, 2017; and

   7. directing Class Members until January 19, 2018, to return a
      claim form seeking a payment from the Class Recovery, or to
      exclude themselves from, or object to, the Settlement.

A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xs9rJ06e

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a5YdMDGe

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kathy L. Safranski, and all others
similarly situated :

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 2056
          E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  heather@sternthomasson.com


PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL: Charles Moves to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Charles, Shanna Griffin and Antonio Simon, Originating
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TRACY CHARLES, et al. v.
PROGRESSIONS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-
02439-JP (E.D. Pa.), move under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
conditional certification of this collective:

     All persons presently or formerly employed by Defendant in
     the positions of Behavioral Health Worker and/or Therapeutic
     Staff Support who worked at least thirty-two (32) hours of
     "billable" work in two (2) or more workweeks from May 30,
     2014 to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SzH4xtbj

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                  mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Higson, Esq.
          Eric B. Meyer, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7000
          E-mail: higsonjj@dilworthlaw.com
                  emeyer@dilworthlaw.com


QUALITY VACATION: More Clients Express Interest in Joining Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cairns, writing for Moneyweb, reports that consumer
protection lawyer Trudie Broekmann is planning a class action
against holiday club companies to demand that they refund their
clients.  Ms. Broekmann says that she has been studying contracts
of points-based time-share schemes, and believes that none of them
are enforceable.

She has already legally cancelled 48 such contracts, primarily
with Quality Vacation Club and Flexi Holiday Club, and has many
more clients who have expressed an interest in instituting a class
action against these and similar companies.

"The first basis for cancellation is that there has been a breach
by the timeshare provider, the second is that the contracts
themselves don't comply with legislation, and third is that the
contract is subsequently void or invalid," Ms. Broekmann
explained. "That is what I am intending the class action to be
about."

If a contract is void, this only needs to be drawn to the
attention of the other party, and they are then obliged to return
everything that has been provided under the agreement.  In the
case of the holiday club contracts, Ms. Broekmann argues that this
means that the providers must return all money paid by their
customers for points, levies or management fees since the contract
was signed.

Problem contracts

Ms. Broekmann argues that a primary problem with the contracts is
that the Holiday Clubs simply to do not deliver on their
obligations.

"One of the standard problems that consumers face is that they pay
for what they think will be a right to use accommodation every
year, but, somehow, more than half of my clients have never
managed to make a single booking," she explains. "The consistent
experiences of my clients creates the impression that the booking
system is set up to ensure that bookings cannot be made."

This of course benefits the holiday club, because if it is
impossible to make a booking, they don't have to supply the
accommodation.

Ms. Broekmann says that the contracts she has seen also do not
comply with the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
and the Property Timesharing Control Act.

"The CPA has a whole raft of requirements, such as that contracts
have to be in plain language, and that the consumer has to agree
each time that there is an onerous provision that takes away their
rights under common law, and these have not been complied with,"
Ms. Broekmann argues.  "Section four of the Property Timesharing
Control Act also requires a provider to disclose all kinds of
information to consumers, and these contracts don't."

Stonewalled

Ms. Broekmann says that she has sent letters to providers on
behalf of 48 clients cancelling their contracts on the basis that
they are void, but has had only one instance where a refund has
been paid.  In all of the other cases, she has received no
response at all.

"There have been no letters coming back saying 'no, you have
misunderstood', or 'no, we haven't committed any breach', or 'no,
we have complied with the law and here's the proof'.  There's been
none of that," says Ms. Broekmann.  "Just silence. It's sort of a
stonewalling approach."

Moneyweb also approached both Quality Vacation Club and Flexi
Holiday Club through their management companies for a response to
Ms. Broekmann's claims, however neither replied to the request.

Furthermore, Ms. Broekmann says that 16 of the 48 clients whose
contracts she has cancelled are still seeing monthly debit orders
go off their bank accounts.  They are having to ask their banks to
reverse these transactions every month.

"In certain other cases, which I think are more extreme, the
clients have been hounded by debt collection agencies and
threatened with being blacklisted," says Ms. Broekmann.  "But you
don't owe anything under a cancelled contact.  It's a completely
groundless debt collection procedure. In fact it amounts to a
breach of section 68 of the CPA, which specially prohibits
harassing a person if they enforce their rights."

Class action

Ms. Broekmann says that on top of the 48 clients whose contracts
she has cancelled, she has around 30 more that she is assisting.

"My intention is to go to court on behalf of these clients and
anyone else who wants to join them and register as a class," she
explains.  "Generally how class actions unfold -- at least in the
US where they are more common -- is that there are very serious
settlement negotiations, since most suppliers are unwilling to
face court time with so many consumers complaining about them.  If
not, we go to court and convince a judge that these contracts are
void, and that the suppliers must subsequently pay everyone out,
plus interest over the years."

Ms. Broekmann notes that she is waiting for the finalisation of an
investigation into holiday clubs by the National Consumer
Commission (NCC) before taking this step.  She wants to give that
process the opportunity to conclude.

The NCC held a first round of public hearings on holiday clubs
earlier this year and is set to hold a second round starting this
month. It is also expected to release a first report during
November.

Ms. Broekmann says that there is also a second group of a few
thousand holiday club clients who are also disgruntled.  Moneyweb
reported two years ago on how the Freedom Front Plus was assisting
them.

"I'm hoping we could join forces," Ms. Broekmann says.  "I've met
with their advocate on that front and it sounds positive, as their
constituency's interests and my clients' interests are exactly the
same, so we could formulate some kind of joint approach.  I think
that would be wonderful." [GN]


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Betz Moves for Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Betz moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled ROBIN BETZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01672-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions
that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a
class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th
Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has
attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the
proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-
cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Uem6OgFv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Bid to Certify 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled A.A. a minor, by and through her guardian ad
litem, the Plaintiff, v. County of Riverside, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02556-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion to certify class of:

   Injunctive Relief Class:

   "[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized, or are
   likely to be seized, from their parents or legal guardians'
   care and custody without a removal warrant by the County of
   Riverside from December 12, 1994 through the date of trial";
   and

   Damages Class:

   "[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized from their
   parents['] or legal guardians' care and custody, without a
   removal warrant, by the County of Riverside from December 12,
   1994 through the date of trial, and where the primary reason
   for removal in the [Child Welfare System/Case Management
   System ('CWS/CMS')] database is 'neglect'"

The Court finds that in light of Pittman's declaration, which
indicates that the County does not conduct warrantless removals of
children on weeknights and weekends in the absence of exigent
circumstances, and Plaintiff's lack of evidence to the contrary,
that Plaintiff's Injunctive Relief class fails under Rule
23(b)(2)'s requirement that she demonstrate that the County "has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class." Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614 (2009). fact common to members of
the class predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and (2) that a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy. See In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay
Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2009). As the Court previously
found in this Order that Plaintiff had failed to sustain her
burden under Rule 23(a)(2), it "need not address whether [the]
Rule 23(b)(3) requirements have been met." See Gonzalez, 381
F.R.D. at 466.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UB9tHZzU


ROSS STORES: No Seats for Checkers & Cashiers, "Zumaya" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ZUMAYA, individually, and as a representative of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROSS STORES, INC., and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680817 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2017), alleges that Ross failed to provide
him and other checkers and/or cashiers with seats in violation of
the California Labor Code.   According to the complaint, the
plaintiff has worked as a checker and/or cashier at Ross in the
Sherman Oaks, California store. The cubicle area is sufficiently
spacious to provide adequate room to provide a seat for a checker
and/or cashier. Ross checkers and/or cashiers' duties include
several duties where the checker and/or cashier work in place for
an entire work shift. During these time periods, a seat is
required by law, the lawsuit says.

Ross is a nationwide retail chain operation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547 5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547 5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

              - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247 9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247 9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


RUBIANO INC: Mays Moves to Certify Class of Entertainers/Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH MAYS and ALESSANDRA
MALMQUIST individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. RUBIANO, INC. and SHARON RUBIANO, Case No. 4:17-cv-00048-JVB-
JEM (N.D. Ind.), move the Court to conditionally certify a
collective action and to facilitate notice to collective
plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek leave to send Notice and Consent to all
similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
Rubiano, Inc. as Entertainers or Dancers at any time during the
three years preceding the filing of the Plaintiffs' Complaint to
the present.

Pursuant to the FLSA, they are entitled to send court-approved
Notice to all other similarly situated current and former
employees, who have experienced violations of the FLSA similar to
those experienced by them, the Plaintiffs contend.  Such similarly
situated employee positions are limited to those persons employed
by Rubiano, Inc., in positions of Entertainers or Dancers, who
were entitled to be classified as employees, instead of
independent contractors, and were not paid properly for hours
worked and hours worked in excess of forty-hours per week, the
Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order the Defendant to
promptly produce to the Plaintiff's counsel a list the names, last
known addresses, and last known telephone numbers of all potential
plaintiffs, and to approve the issuance of the Notice and Consent
in the forms hereto to all such persons.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BOZncmb2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Sullivan, Esq.
          BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
          8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 575-4108
          Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
          E-mail: rsullivan@bdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicholas C. Deets, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
          10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 660-2941
          E-mail: ndeets@hovdelaw.com


SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., and E & G, INC.
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, LP and JOHN
DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-1638-GAP-DCI (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification of:

   Class A - 2013 Faxes:

   "all persons or entities successfully sent one or more
   facsimiles on or about September 4, 2013, and September 6,
   2013, stating "Free month (average value $500 per 100 rooms,"
   "Free Battery replacement every 18 months for initial term of
   contract (3 times)," and "1 Free Safe for Office"";

   Class B - 2015 Fax:

   "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on or
   about December 1, 2015, stating "Attention owners and hotel
   employees: Increase Cash Flow at NO COST!" and "Learn more
   today at Safemark.com."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=94pgO0eW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Baird" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Lance Baird, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-06407-JSW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Raymond Ongaro, Esq.
          ONGARO PC
          50 California Street, Suite 3325
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433 3900
          Facsimile: (415) 433 3950
          E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com

               - and -

          Jacob L Karczewski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB KARCZEWSKI PLLC
          43611 N 30th Street, Seattle
          Tacoma, WA 98407
          Telephone: (253) 229 3173
          E-mail: jkarczewski@rrexparris.com


SAN JOSE, CA: Police Sued Over Undercover Gay Stings
----------------------------------------------------
Brandon Voss, writing for NewNowNext, reports that a federal
lawsuit has been filed against the San Jose Police Department over
undercover lewd-conduct stings that unfairly targeted gay men,
Mercury News reports.

The lawsuit comes more than a year after Santa Clara County
Superior Court Judge Jose S. Franco ruled that these "decoy"
operations, conducted during a 17-month period in 2014-15 at a
public men's room in Columbus Park, were unconstitutional.  Judge
Franco dismissed the misdemeanor charges against six men accused
of loitering with intent to commit a lewd and lascivious or
unlawful act.

The new complaint seeks monetary damages of at least $1 million
for five of the six defendants cleared by the June 2016 ruling.
Prominent gay-rights attorney Bruce Nickerson is also seeking
class-action status for the lawsuit in hopes that it will help end
the undercover police solicitation of gay men in public parks and
restrooms.

"They're invalid and discriminatory," said Mr. Nickerson of the
stings, "because they target male-male public sex and not also
male-female public sex."

San Jose police say that while the stings were conducted due to
citizen complaints and officer observations of unlawful activity
in the park, these operations have since been discontinued.

"We have a responsibility to respond to complaints of crimes and
are always looking for other ways to do so," police chief
Eddie Garcia said in a statement.  "We have not used these type of
undercover operations in response to public complaints of unlawful
lewd-conduct in the more than two years since these arrests
occurred.  We are still responding and enforcing the law by
utilizing other techniques."

"The LGBT community often gets forgotten in efforts to increase
trust with the police, but in the past two years, we are doing
more than ever to make sure that is not the case in San Jose," Mr.
Garcia continued.  "We created an LGBT advisory committee,
established an LGBT liaison officer program and launched a first-
in-the-nation police recruiting campaign featuring same-sex
couples."

Judge Nickerson argues that the undercover enforcement preys on
men struggling with their sexuality and looking for a safe place
to explore it.

"I have no objection to uniformed cops doing patrol, but when they
go decoy, that's what makes it invalid," he said, explaining how
the officers falsely express sexual interest in their vulnerable
targets.

"It's one thing to be arrested.  What's worse is to be arrested
and deprived of your liberties because you're gay. That's
essentially what's going on." [GN]


SAUL CHEVROLET: Court Denies "Rivera" Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARCOS RIVERA, the Plaintiff, v. SAUL
CHEVROLET, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-05966-
LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order
denying with prejudice Plaintiff's second motion to conditionally
certify collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Court said, "The Court's July 31, 2017 order denying
Plaintiff's first motion to conditionally certify a FLSA
collective action, the Court set forth the deficiencies in
Plaintiff's first motion in great detail and warned that
"[f]ailure to cure the deficiencies identified in this order will
result in a denial with prejudice of conditional certification of
FLSA collective action."  The Plaintiff was unable to cure those
deficiencies when granted leave to file a second motion to
conditionally certify a FLSA collective action."

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


SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 4, 2017, for an order
to certify a Class consisting of the following Class and
Subclasses:

ISR Class:

   all persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an
   Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time within
   four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified as an
   independent contractor"; and

Terminated ISR Subclass:

   "all members of the ISR Class whose working relationship ended
   during the Class Period."

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for appointment of
themselves as Class Representatives, and for appointment of their
attorneys as Class Counsel.

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

Attorneys for Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono:

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


SCI DIRECT: Wins Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Romano" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned NICOLE ROMANO and JONATHAN BONO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.),

   -- granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second
      amended complaint for failure to state a claim;

   -- dismissing as moot and without prejudice Plaintiffs'
      motions for class certification under both Rule 23 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor
      Standards Act; and

   -- dismissing as moot and without prejudice Plaintiffs'
      application to file under seal documents in support of
      those Motions.

The action arises out of alleged violations of California labor
and wage laws.  Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono worked
as Independent Sales Representatives ("ISRs") for Defendant.  In
their role as ISRs, the Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified
as independent contractors, rather than employees, as a part of
Defendant's "elaborate scheme to skirt the requirements" of the
California Labor Code and the FLSA.

The Court orders that the Plaintiffs will be permitted to re-file
their Motions for Class Certification no more than 30 days
following either: (1) Defendant's substantive answer to
Plaintiffs' third-amended complaint, or (2) the date of an order
from this Court ruling on Defendant's subsequent Motion to
Dismiss.  The hearing dates on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class
Certification are vacated.

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


SEAGATE TECH: Class Certification Sought in Hard Drive Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the plaintiffs will move the Court
on February 9, 2018, for an order certifying pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and California law, a class of:

   "all individuals in the United States who purchased new, not
   for resale, on or before February 1, 2016, at least one
   Seagate model ST3000DM001 hard drive or at least one drive
   with any of the following model numbers on the box it was sold
   in or on the hard drive's casing or chassis: STAC3000100,
   STAC3000102, STAC3000202, STAC3000402, STAC3000403,
   STAC3000404, STAC3000602, STAM3000100, STAM3000400,
   STAY3000100, STAY3000102, STBC3000101, STBC3000102,
   STBD3000100, STBM3000100, STBN6000100, STBP12000100,
   STBV3000100, STBV3000200, STCA3000101, STCA3000600,
   STCA3000601, STCA3000602, STCB3000100, STCB3000101,
   STCB3000201, STCB3000400, STCB3000401, STCB3000900,
   STCB3000901, STCP3000100, STCP3000400, STDT3000100,
   STDT3000400, STDT3000402, STDT3000600, STDU3000101,
   STDU3000400, STEB3000100, STEB3000200, STEB3000400,
   STEG3000100, STEG3000400, STFM3000100, or STFM3000400."

In the alternative, the plaintiffs propose these state classes
under the omissions theory in these jurisdictions' consumer
protection laws:

   "all individuals in the jurisdictions of California, Florida,
   Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota,
   Tennessee, Texas, who purchased new, not for resale, on or
   before February 1, 2016, at least one Seagate model
   ST3000DM001 hard drive or at least one drive with any of the
   following model numbers on the box it was sold in or on the
   hard drive's casing or chassis: STAC3000100, STAC3000102,
   STAC3000202, STAC3000402, STAC3000403, STAC3000404,
   STAC3000602, STAM3000100, STAM3000400, STAY3000100,
   STAY3000102, STBC3000101, STBC3000102, STBD3000100,
   STBM3000100, STBN6000100, STBP12000100, STBV3000100,
   STBV3000200, STCA3000101, STCA3000600, STCA3000601,
   STCA3000602, STCB3000100, STCB3000101, STCB3000201,
   STCB3000400, STCB3000401, STCB3000900, STCB3000901,
   STCP3000100, STCP3000400, STDT3000100, STDT3000400,
   STDT3000402, STDT3000600, STDU3000101, STDU3000400,
   STEB3000100, STEB3000200, STEB3000400, STEG3000100,
   STEG3000400, STFM3000100, or TFM3000400."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SKVhp3c8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

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

               - and -

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, California 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          Noah Axler, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH, LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534 7400
          E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com
                  naxler@axgolaw.com


SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court OKs $800K Settlement in "Lewis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned DOMENICA
LEWIS, JEROLD LEWIS, DOMENICA LEWIS as guardian ad-litem for her
minor children, and PROJECT SENTINEL, Plaintiffs, v. SILVERTREE
MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., CAROL LEE ADAMS, MARILYN
BLACK, ANAND BHASKARAN, and TAMELA DURANT, individually and as
members of the Board of Directors, and DONALD MURPHY individually
and d/b/a/MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, Defendants, No. C 16-03581 WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association adopted a "no
sports play" rule, which prohibited any children under the age of
14 from being in the complex's common areas without adult
supervision, and from engaging in any sports activities in the
common areas.  The homeowners' association board of directors
enforced this rule, including by posting notice of the rule in the
HOA's monthly newsletters and fining parents of children in breach
of the rule.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the HOA, its board members, and the
complex manager, Donald Murphy (d/b/a/Management Solutions).  The
complaint alleged seven claims for violations of federal and state
fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, and sought monetary and
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of residents of
the complex who had minor children living with them in the complex
during the class period.

While plaintiffs' motion for class certification proceeded, the
parties reached a settlement agreement during a conference.

Here, there is no intimation of collusion or self-interest on the
part of class counsel.  Indeed, to guard against this concern,
class counsel has agreed that it will not receive any fees as part
of the settlement, and instead were required to make a separate
fee application, which in no way bears upon the class members'
recovery.

Plaintiffs secured substantial relief for the class, including all
of the injunctive relief sought as well as a monetary award of
approximately $2,335 per plaintiff (under which scheme a family of
four will receive approximately $9,340). This is a reasonable
recovery when weighed against the risk of going to trial.

Moreover, the release in the proposed class settlement is tailored
to the claims actually pursued in this action, and does not bind
any class member who could not be located with reasonable
diligence, or who opts out. Finally, no class member has objected
to the proposed class settlement, and the time for written
objections has passed.

Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed class settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate so as to warrant final approval.

Here, plaintiffs' counsel seek $468,888 total based on the
expenditure of 897.32 hours.  This amount is divided between the
two firms that represented plaintiffs, Winston & Strawn billing
$253,547.50 for 410.25 hours, and the Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley billing $215,340.50 for 487.07 hours.  In support of their
billing amounts, both firms have provided task-by-task billing
narratives, as well as the position, experience, and rates of each
biller.  Defendants contend that the rates plaintiffs' counsel
have billed are unreasonable, and should be adjusted downward.

Here, total class recovery is $800,000.  Plaintiffs' attorneys are
seeking $468,888, which is approximately 37% of the total outlay.
The reductions applied by this order, however, reduce the recovery
to $296,020, which amounts to 27% of the total outlay.  Given the
substantial injunctive relief secured by plaintiffs' counsel, this
is well within the range of a reasonable recovery.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
costs is granted in part.  Applying reductions to plaintiffs'
counsel's fee request, plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to
$296,020 in attorneys' fees. The order further approves $3,461 in
costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjp3hgc from Leagle.com.

Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham --
annettek@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.
Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Corey David Attaway  --
cattaway@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis -
kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Matthew Frederick Warren  -- matthew.warren@lawfoundation.org --
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz --
nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian -- rjulian@winston.com -- Esq., Winston &
Strawn LLP.

Jerrold Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley,Corey David Attaway, Winston and
Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

Jerrold Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Nadia Aziz, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston &
Strawn LLP.

S. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

E. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

Project Sentinel, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham,
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Corey David Attaway, Winston and
Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia
Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq.,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty,
Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, 3480 Buskirk Ave Ste 250. Pleasant
Hill, CA 94523-7310, Jacy C. Dardine --
jacy.dardine@mcnamaralaw.com -- McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee
Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP,  1211
Newell Ave, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Carol Lee Adams, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Marilyn Black, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Anand Bhaskaran, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Tamela Durant, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Donald W Murphy, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.


SIMMONS FOODS: "Fochtman" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mark Fochtman and Shane O'Neal,
Individually, and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Caair, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Darp, Inc.'
Hendren Plastics, Inc.; and John Does 1-30, Case No. 04cv-17-
02190, was removed on Nov. 6, 2017 from the Circuit Court of
Benton County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-05228-TLB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks.

Simmons Foods is a supplier of poultry, pet, and ingredient
products based in Siloam Springs, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATE P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975 5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net

Attorneys for Simmons Foods, Inc.

          John R. Elrod, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
          4375 N. Vantage Drive, Suite 405
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 582 5711
          Facsimile: (479) 587 1426
          E-mail: jelrod@cwlaw.com


SODEXO INC: Court Denies Lazo's Amended Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF,
NY'COLE YOUNG THOMAS, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
13366-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.
entered an order denying Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "The three named plaintiffs worked together at One
Lincoln Street, so they have at least some things in common with
each other. What they have not shown is that there are questions
of fact or law that can be given a common answer across the
various services provided by Sodexo over the range of various
locations, governed by differing contractual terms and fees
between Sodexo and the client. Contrary to the plaintiffs'
contention, the named plaintiffs were not "aggrieved by the same
practice or policy as the putative class members" because there
appears to be no "practice or policy" common to the multiple
locations where the putative class members worked. For example, a
determination that Sodexo violated the Tips Act with respect to
the three named plaintiffs working at One Lincoln Street would do
nothing to determine whether the statute had been violated at
other locations where other services were rendered on varying
terms. It follows, of course, that the plaintiffs' individual
claims are therefore not typical of the variety of different
claims that would have to be asserted by workers at other
locations. In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show a consistent
practice or policy regarding the imposition of fees across their
proposed class locations that would permit classwide resolution of
their claim, by permitting the determination of a "common answer"
to a classwide issue. See Wal-Mart Stores, 564 U.S. at 350.
Accordingly, they have not established either commonality or
typicality as required by Rule 23(a)(2)-(3).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=15xlYPxd


STATE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Bonin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Bonin and Amy Vega move the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ELAINE BONIN and
AMY VEGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01646-
JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions
that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a
class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th
Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has
attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the
proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-
cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3gYQH2bY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


STATE FARM: "Vogt" Suit Seeks to Certify Policy Owners Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL G. VOGT, Individually and On Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-04170-NKL
(W.D. Mo.), Mr. Vogt moves for an order certifying a class of
policy owners:

   "all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
   policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of
   Missouri."

This case presents overarching common questions, the answers to
which will resolve tens of thousands of claims without the need
for individualized testimony: whether State Farm deducted cost of
insurance and expense charges from each policy owner's Account
Value in amounts greater than those authorized by the Policy.
Because this case involves the interpretation of materially
identical form contracts, all claims will turn on the Policy's
terms and conditions."

Few cases are better suited for class treatment. The Policy is a
"universal life" insurance policy. Universal life insurance is a
type of "permanent" life insurance that, unlike standard "term"
insurance, is intended to provide lifetime.

Excluded from the Class are: State Farm; any entity in which State
Farm has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors,
or employees of State Farm; the legal representatives,
heirs, successors, and assigns of State Farm; anyone employed with
Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is
assigned, and his or her immediate family.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YPTB9FnO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MI 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stueveseigel.com
                  lange@stueveseigel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, Missouri 64111
          Telephone: 816 561 6500
          Facsimile: 816 561 6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com


SUDLER AND COMPANY: Horist's Motion to Certify Class Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2017, in the case
styled Keith Horist, et al. v. Sudler and Company, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-08113 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' placeholder motion to certify class is
      withdrawn without prejudice;

   -- Defendant Sudler and Company's motion for extension of time
      to December 19, 2017, to answer or otherwise plead is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motions to dismiss is
      due by January 30, 2018;

   -- Defendants' replies are due by February 20, 2018; and

   -- Status hearing is set for May 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=61i6MqIz


SUMMITT TRUCKING: Bid to Certify in "Ratliff" Suit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2017, in the case
entitled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Summitt Trucking, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-07208 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- status hearing held and continued to May 2, 2018, at
      9:30 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn;

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be filed by
      December 15, 2017;

   -- Parties' joint oral motion for leave to file motion and
      response in excess of 15 pages is granted to three
      additional pages;

   -- Plaintiff's response shall be filed by January 16, 2018;

   -- Defendants' reply in support shall be filed by January 30,
      2018;

   -- The court will rule electronically;

   -- All fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed
      by August 1, 2018;

   -- The Court will stay the deadline for Defendants' answer and
      the participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
      program in this case until ruling on the motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Oi9avbte


SURFSIDE COFFEE: Jerez et al Seek to Certify Store Managers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELIZABET JEREZ, WANDA ADORNO, and RONALD
HUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22969-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to grant motion to conditionally certify collective
action and facilitate notice to similarly situated employees on
behalf of:

   "all current and former store managers employed by Defendants
   throughout the state of Florida and classified as exempt, and
   not properly paid for hours worked in excess of 40 and
   employed for any length of time since three (3) years prior to
   the filing of the instant lawsuit, should be provided
   notification of the pendency of this action and of their right
   to opt-into this action should they file a notice of consent
   with the clerk of this court."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eBmA0rJh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 544-8900
          Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
          E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com

Counsel for Defendant Surfside Coffee Company

          John C. German, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Anguiano, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE P.A.
          9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350 5300
          Facsimile: (305) 373 2294
          E-mail: cody.german@csklegal.com
                  rebecca.anguiano@csklegal.com

               - and -

          Allison Folk, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          E-mail: Allison.Folk@jacksonlewis.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Fritsch" Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GRANT FRITSCH, an individual, the Plaintiff,
v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02226-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus
G Bernal entered an order on December 7, 2017, (1) granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; (2) remanding the case to state
court; and (3) vacating a December 11, 2017 (in chambers).

Judge Bernal held that Defendant has proven the amount in
controversy is approximately $4,778,575, which does not exceed the
jurisdictional minimum.  Thus, the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

The action is remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court,
CIVDS81518012.

Mr. Fritsch was scheduled to move the Court on December 11 for an
order certifying a class, designating himself as Class
Representative, and appointing Daniel J. Palay and Brian D.
Hefelfinger of Palay Hefelfinger, APC, and Michael A. Strauss of
Strauss & Strauss, APC, as Class Counsel.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
          PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
          1484 E. Main Street, Suite 105-B
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 628 8220
          Facsimile: (805) 765 8600
          E-mail: bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 North Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641 6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641 6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com


TAUBRA CORP: Agrees to Drivers Class Certification in "Burcham"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled JAMES BURCHAM AND GRADY HILL,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TAUBRA
CORP., AN OHIO CORPORATION, D/B/A MERCURY SERVICE, and JUDITH
BOWERS FRANCIS, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-00168-TMR-MJN (S.D.
Ohio), file a joint stipulation for conditional certification of
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to
facilitate notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs.

The Defendants, while entering the Joint Stipulation with the
Plaintiffs, do not concede that final certification is
appropriate, that any other Rule 23 certification is appropriate,
reserve all rights to object to final certification and/or to file
a motion for decertification, and do not waive any arguments or
defenses they may assert in support of a later motion for
decertification.

The Parties have agreed to the following definition for
conditional certification and notice purposes only:

     All delivery drivers classified as independent contractors
     who worked for Defendants within the last three years who
     were not paid at least minimum wage for some hours worked
     and/or who were not compensated at time-and-one half for
     hours worked in excess of forty hours in one or more
     workweeks.

The Parties also ask the Court to:

   (1) direct the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's
       undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting
       this Motion a list containing the names, the last known
       addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of their
       social security numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of
       work of each putative class member;

   (2) authorize the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Class Notice
       to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
       by the Defendants by first-class mail and e-mail; and

   (3) provide all individuals whose names appear on the list
       produced by the Defendants to file a Consent to Become
       Opt-In Plaintiff.

A copy of the Joint Stipulation is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xOm3iFrd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          MARKOVITZ, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          Easton Town Center
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
          E-mail: ABiller@msdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael W. Sandner, Esq.
          Matthew D. Stokely, Esq.
          PICKREL, SCHAEFFER & EBELING, CO., LPA
          2700 Kettering Tower
          Dayton, OH 45423
          Telephone: (937) 223-1130
          Facsimile: (937) 223-0339
          E-mail: msandner@pselaw.com
                  mstokely@pselaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to certify a class of:

   "all clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
   September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive best
   execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade received
   either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow, and who
   were thereby damaged".

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class for injunctive
relief as follows:

   "all clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
   September 15, 2014 who placed orders in connection with which
   TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for
   order flow and who continue to be clients of TD Ameritrade
   (Injunctive Class)".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff to serve
as Class Representative; and appoint Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Class
Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq.
          Patrice D. Ott, Esq.
          KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O.
          One Pacific Place, Suite 800
          1125 South 103rd Street
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 390 9500
          Facsimile: (402) 390 9005
          E-mail: Greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com
                  Patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992 4523
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mailk: ek@zlk.com
                  ckupka@zlk.com


TESLA INC: Former Employees Join Class Action Over Mass Firings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Hansen, writing for The Mercury News, reports that
Frank Morales joined Tesla about four years ago, eager to work for
a growing company.

Mr. Morales handled the aggressive deadlines of the Tesla
warehouse -- until October.  He said he received years of strong
performance reviews, but was fired one day "with no warning."

A friend and a cousin recently asked him if they should go to work
for the car maker.  "I told them no," Mr. Morales said, "stay
where you're at."

Tesla's October dismissal of 700 workers has left former employees
angry and outspoken.  Some, like Mr. Morales, have refused to a
sign a separation agreement they feel is unfair and restrictive.
The agreement bars former employees from disparaging the company
or the executives who fired them, according to a copy obtained by
this news organization.

Tesla also faces ongoing protests, lawsuits and federal complaints
from ex-workers and workers seeking to unionize -- and is once
again aggressively defending its image.

The disruptions come as the company battles the enormous task of
hiring, training and expanding a skilled workforce to produce a
new vehicle -- the delayed, lower-cost Model 3 -- that's key to
its success and survival.

Experts in human resources and employment law say the abrupt
dismissals and upheaval could have lasting consequences for the
Tesla brand and the company's ability to attract talented
engineers and factory workers.

"You really need to plan (terminations) very, very carefully,
because it's about people," said Sanjay Sathe, CEO of placement
support agency RiseSmart.  The former workers could be future
customers or even rehired as production demands increase,
Mr. Sathe said. And bad word-of-mouth reviews can spread quickly
on social media.

CEO Elon Musk acknowledged for the first time the company had
fired 700 employees, saying it was for poor performance.  Tesla
sets high worker standards, he said, because it must be better
than its bigger competition.  "They're high because, if they're
not high, we will die," Mr. Musk said.

He complained that the October terminations, first reported by
this news organization, became public and added that journalists
should "be ashamed" for writing about a turnover of 2 percent of
the public company's employees.

The company also shot back at critics questioning its treatment of
workers, who have raised concerns about lax worker safety rules
and low pay. Chief people officer Gaby Toledano wrote an op-ed in
the Sacramento Bee touting the company's employee stock program
and innovative environment. The company lists more than 2,500 open
positions on its job board.

"Our employees have many paths towards promotion and long-term
careers," Mr. Toledano wrote in response to a critic.  "We also
believe it is important for everyone to be an owner of the company
so, unlike other automakers, everyone is awarded company stock
upon hiring."

Palo Alto-based Tesla says workers remain attracted to the
automotive and clean tech company.  A company spokesman said Tesla
received more than 73,000 applications worldwide in October, a 16
percent increase from January.

Any suggestion that the firings would hurt Tesla hiring in the
long-term, the company said, "is purely speculation."  The
company's stock price hit record highs this year, but fell in
recent weeks.

Analysts have kept a close watch on employee turnover in key
positions.  High-profile executives in autonomous driving,
batteries, finance and business development have left the company
this year.

More than a dozen current and former employees interviewed said
their dismissals came with little or no warning and were unrelated
to performance.  Some said they were fired weeks before stock
options vested.  Many added that morale suffered at the plant, as
workers were unsure of their job status.

The company has also angered outgoing employees by requiring them
to sign a broad non-disparagement clause as part of their
separation package.

The separation agreements ban ex-employees from bad-mouthing the
company, its executives, investors, affiliated companies, and
contractors and products.  Fired employees are prohibited from
specifically criticizing Mr. Musk, in return for two weeks
severance pay.

Irving Arguello, a former Tesla mechanic from San Francisco,
refused to sign the agreement. "I got spit out," said
Mr. Arguello, an expert in automotive electronics.  "It's a lot to
ask."

Mr. Arguello spent months in Norway, Canada and in U.S. cities
fixing Tesla cars and training mechanics.  He enjoyed learning the
cutting edge technology, but said he became disillusioned with
company managers ignoring worker needs, and Tesla's demand for
secrecy.

"Tesla relies a lot on perception," he said.  "They want to keep
the positive perception."

Scores of workers and supporters have protested at the Fremont
factory since the terminations. Some former employees have joined
a class action suit, saying the dismissals were actually layoffs -
- a distinction that could bring ex-employees up to 60 days of
back pay.

Like the Argus Facebook page for neighborhood news and
conversation from Fremont and beyond.

Employment lawyers say it's unusual to fire hundreds of employees
within weeks for performance issues.

"If an employee is doing poorly, you would just fire him," said
Nick Rosenthal, a Los Angeles attorney for several ex-workers.
"You wouldn't fire hundreds at the same time."

Randy Strauss, an employment attorney based in Oakland, questioned
Tesla's explanation for the dismissal.

"On its face, it seems highly unlikely," Mr. Strauss said.  "Have
you ever heard of a company that fires up to 1,000 people at one
time, for cause?"

Josie Camacho, an executive at the Alameda Labor Council, said the
terminations shocked many in the community.  Labor organizers had
high hopes for Mr. Musk leading a new era of auto manufacturing in
the Bay Area and restoring the former Toyota NUMMI plant to
regional, economic powerhouse.

Ms. Camacho said remaining factory workers she's spoken with are
upset.  "As far as I'm concerned," she said, "this employer needs
to be held accountable."

Mr. Morales, 46, insists he's not bitter about his time at Tesla.
He's found a new, better-paying job closer to his home in San
Jose.  "Things happen for a reason."

But still, he said, "I don't think it was right." [GN]


TEZOS: Silver Miller Files Class Action in Florida Over ICO
-----------------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that The Tezos
Initial Coin Offering (ICO) has been hit with another class action
filing, this time in Florida.  Filed by the law firm of Silver
Miller in Coral Springs, the legal action is on behalf of
plaintiff Alejandro Gaviria.  The suit names founders Kathleen and
Arthur Breitman, along with Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. and the
Tezos Foundation (based in Switzerland) as defendants.

Tezos sold "Tezzies" tokens in an ICO this past summer that raised
$232 million.  Some estimates have placed the total take at $600
million as the price of Bitcoin and other crypto having
skyrocketed in value in the ensuing months following the
crowdsale.

Much of the filing is similar to the first class action filed in
California by Taylor-Copeland Law in San Diego. The suit alleges
securities fraud and highlights the fact Tezos has disintegrated
into a very public squabble between the Breitman's and Johann
Gevers who manages the Tezos Foundation.  The suit says the
corporate infighting has caused concern the Tezos Blockchain may
never be launched.

The law suit says the defendants have already pocketed "tens of
millions of dollars" for their promotional efforts that included
"many misrepresentations, factual commissions, and unlawful
activities." The plaintiff is concerned he will never receive any
return on their investment.  Mr. Gaviria apparently transferred
25.0799 ETH  and 28 ETH in July, an amount that is now worth
approximately $17,347.22.

The filing notes that prominent VC Tim Draper allegedly backed
Tezos with a $1.5 million minority stake in DLS and his
participation helped to bolster the perception of legitimacy.  The
document references the terms of the Tezos ICO where apparently
8.5% of the total offering went to DLS and its shareholders.  With
the rise in the price of Bitcoin and Ether this amount was pegged
at $50 million.

As part of the class action, the law firm has included the terms
of the ICO that indicates Tezos sought to define the offering as a
donation and not an investment. [GN]


THREE SEASONS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Urrutia" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUAN URRUTIA Y URRUTIA, the Plaintiff, v.
THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACING ERVICES, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-06416-TR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon Judge
Timothy Rice entered an order:

   1. dismissing Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and
      Defendants' motion to stay as moot; and

   2. dismissing Counsel's June 30, 2017 motion to withdraw as
      moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oy1scAVb


TITLE SOURCE: Court Shelves Conditional Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SOM SWAMY, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TITLE
SOURCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order:

   1. holding Swamy's motion for conditional certification in
      abeyance; and

   2. denying Swamy's motion for a protective order.

The plaintiff shall have an opportunity to renew his motion at the
same time he seeks Rule 23 certification, the Court said.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c8COIdpg


TK SERVICES: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL NUNEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TK SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
BC682512 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Labor Code

Defendants maintain shops/branches/locations at which they
manufacture, sell and service their temperature control units in
California in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fontana, Stockton, Redding,
San Leandro and Sacramento. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
as a non-exempt employee in various positions, the last of which
was Shop Foreman, from 1987 through February 26, 2016. The
Plaintiff performed various duties during his employment with
Defendants, including, without limitation, installing and
servicing temperature control units. During his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was typically scheduled to work commencing
at 7:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. However, Plaintiff would often arrive
at work and commence working prior to his scheduled start time.
Despite clocking in and commencing work prior to the scheduled
start of his shift, Defendants would only pay Plaintiff from the
scheduled start of his shift, rather than from the time that he
clocked in and actually began performing work for Defendants. The
Defendants knew and/or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff
was working and providing services to Defendants at their
direction and control. The Defendants would keep track of
Plaintiff s time worked and would unlawfully shave Plaintiffs work
time and/or round Plaintiffs work time such that Plaintiff would
not be fully paid for all time worked. This time shaving/rounding
practice utilized by Defendants was not even-handed over time and
would almost exclusively round and shave in Defendants' favor such
that Plaintiff was routinely underpaid for his time worked. For
example, on February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs time records indicate he
worked a portion of the day from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., yet
was only allotted 4.5 hours of work time instead of the actual 5
hours worked. There are many instances within Plaintiffs records
indicating his time was rounded and/or shaved by Defendants and in
their favor, resulting in Plaintiff being routinely underpaid his
wages. Further, had Plaintiff been properly allotted all the time
he actually worked, including the time unlawfully shaved/rounded
and the time he worked before and after his scheduled shift, he
would have often worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40
hours in a week resulting in overtime which was either not paid,
or underpaid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


TOURO COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touro College. The
case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Touro College, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08416-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

Touro College is a private college of higher and professional
education in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was
founded by Bernard Lander in 1971 and named for Isaac and Judah
Touro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796 7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Christina A. Snyder has under submission these motions
submitted in the lawsuit captioned GORDON FELLER; ET AL. v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-01378-CAS-
AJW (C.D. Cal.):

   -- Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for provisional class certification,
      appointment of class representative, appointment of class
      counsel, and issuance of class notice; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of
      class representatives, and appointment of class counsel.

"Hearing held and counsel are present.  Tentative Orders provided.
The Court confers with counsel and counsel argue.  The Court takes
the above-referenced motions under submission," according to the
Court's civil minutes.

The Court further confers with counsel, as stated in Court and on
the record.  The Court continues the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, and Defendant's Motion to Strike.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UzuMJj5e

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 776-5902
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
          THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER & CONSUMER RIGHTS
          1750 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522
          Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
          E-mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org

               - and -

          Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nancy Thomas, Esq.
          Dan Marmalefsky, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: nthomas@mofo.com
                  dmarmalefsky@mofo.com


TT OF PINE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Mahoney" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TOM MAHONEY, the Plaintiff, v. TT OF PINE
RIDGE, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80029-DMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all persons or legal entities in the United States who,
      during the Class Period, received a non-emergency call,
      text, or voicemail message from or on behalf of Naples
      Nissan through the use of an automatic telephone dialing
      system or an artificial or prerecorded voice";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Mahoney as representative of the
      settlement class, and appointing The Law Offce of Chris R.
      Miltenberger, PLLC, and Brandon J. Hill, of Wenzel Fenton
      Cabassa, P.A. as Class Counsel;

   3. approving an award of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in
      the total amount of $344,447.08 and $15,184.91 in
      costs/expenses;

   4. dismissing the action with prejudice and without taxable
      costs to any Party, and judgment is entered in accordance
      with this Order and the settlement agreement;

   5. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of final
      approval order and judgment;

   6. granting in part Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
      attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and a class
      representative service award; and

   7. directing Clerk of Court to close this case and deny all
      pending motions as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F2ABPdNQ


U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Hwang" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HWANG aka ASHLEY A. SLAYTON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS
INC., a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of DIGNITY HEALTH;
JOSEPH MALLAS, an individual; KEVIN COYLE, an individual; MICHAEL
MORRISON, an individual, WAEL MOHAMED, an individual; MARK
MARTINEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC682528 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017),
seeks to recover all earned wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, every other week, Defendants required
Plaintiff to be "on-call" from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to respond
immediately to emergency calls. The Defendants compensated
Plaintiff by paying her a lower hourly rate for such "on-call"
time. However, Defendants failed to add the "on-call" time worked
by Plaintiff with her regular hours worked in the same day and
thereby failed, timely or otherwise, to pay her accurate overtime
compensation. In addition, Defendants did not authorize and permit
Plaintiff to take meal and rest periods, did not keep track of
meal periods, did not provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized
wage statements showing each hourly rate and the corresponding
hours worked, and did not timely pay Plaintiff all earned wages
and compensation upon termination of her employment with
Defendant.

U.S. HealthWorks, Inc. is an American health care provider network
headquartered in Valencia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
          HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER,
          POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC
          5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
          Ventura, CA 93003
          Telephone: (805) 644 7111
          Facsimile: (805) 644 8296

               - and -

          Robert W. Skripko, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., APLC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 476 2000
          Facsimile: (949) 476 2007


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Victorian Operations
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Johnston, writing for Herald Sun, reports that taxi and hire-
car drivers are preparing to launch a multimillion-dollar class
action against ride-share giant Uber.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn will open a registration system for
drivers and licence holders who believe they lost earnings as a
result of Uber's conduct.

The potential action would be based on allegations that the
company acted unlawfully when operating in Victoria between 2013
and earlier this year, and resulted in loss and damages to taxi
and hire-car licence holders and operators.

The move follows similar action taken in Quebec, Canada, where
taxi drivers are taking on the global ride-share operator for loss
of earnings.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
said the firm's current investigation was to confirm that
"unlawful action" by Uber had occurred, and if enough taxi drivers
showed interest in joining the action, then it may proceed.

"It's no secret that Uber's entry to the market has, in some
instances, had devastating consequences," he said.

Mr Watson said the case wasn't against the government or the
regulator -- the Taxi Services Commission -- and whether law-
breaking behaviour had been pursued.

Registrations were set to open on Nov. 20, with the Victorian Hire
Car Association to be informed at its annual general meeting.

VHCA president Rod Barton said drivers "have been treated so
unfairly since the arrival of Uber in Victoria".

"We are very supportive of Maurice Blackburn investigating the
possibility of a class action against Uber regarding the way they
entered the market in Victoria," he said.

Uber has been on Melbourne roads since 2013, and allows passengers
to book a journey through an app for an estimated fare.

When it began operating, its drivers were not registered with a
regulatory body, unlike taxis and hire cars, and the state
government only created new laws only this year that covered the
ride-share company.

It also removed licence fees for taxis and hire-cars and forced
those "who provide a booking service for the use of a commercial
passenger vehicle to be accredited".

In response to industry anger about the value of taxi plates being
destroyed, the government has promised owners $100,000
compensation for the first licence, and $50,000 for up to three
other licences.

A second round of legislation, which would deregulate the industry
and allow taxi operators to set their own fares, is currently
before State Parliament.

The portal for driver applications will be at
mauriceblackburn.com.au/uberclassaction [GN]


UNITED STATES: Lerner, Paz Want IRS Case Depositions Sealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court that
members of her family, including "young children," face death
threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the
tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents
in court on Nov. 16 saying tapes and transcripts of depositions
they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in
perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to
retaliate.

"Whenever Mss. Lerner and Paz have been in the media spotlight,
they have faced death threats and harassment," attorneys for the
two women argued.

Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz gave taped depositions in a class-action
lawsuit brought by tea party groups demanding answers and
compensation for having been subjected to illegal targeting for
their political beliefs.

The government settled the class-action lawsuit in Ohio and
another tea party challenge in the District of Columbia in two
agreements in October, admitting to the illegal behavior. The Ohio
settlement also called for the government to pay $3.5 million to
the tea party groups, according to one of the plaintiffs.

Ms. Lerner came in for particular criticism, with the government
admitting she not only didn't stop the targeting -- contradicting
the Obama administration's claims -- but also hid it from her
superiors in Washington.

During the course of the Ohio case, the tea party groups filed
thousands of pages of documents, but testimony from Ms. Lerner and
Ms. Paz was left out of the public record because of their earlier
request for privacy.

Now Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz say that since the case has been
settled, there is no reason for their testimony to ever become
public.

"The voluminous record of harassment and physical threats to Mss.
Lerner and Paz and their families during the pendency of this
litigation provides a compelling reason to seal the materials,"
the women's attorneys said.

They particularly blamed Mark Meckler, a tea party leader whose
organization helped fund the class-action lawsuit, saying he
helped stoke the threats against them by calling IRS agents
"criminal thugs."

"These words matter.  They have created a fertile environment
where threats and harassment against Mss. Lerner and Paz have
flourished," the lawyers said.

Mr. Meckler laughed when he learned about the filing.

"Four years of harassing innocent American citizens for their
political beliefs, and she's scared of a guy in a cowboy hat
talking to a bunch of little old ladies at a tea party event?" he
said, recounting the speech where he called IRS agents "thugs."
He said if the depositions didn't show any bad action on her part,
then Ms. Lerner should have nothing to fear from their release to
the public.

"The reality is because she knows she is guilty as the day is long
and she doesn't want people to know what she actually did," he
said.

"It's hard to have any sympathy for the women.  And frankly, I
don't believe she's genuinely scared," Mr. Meckler said.

The Trump administration backs making the documents public,
according to court documents, which leaves Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz
fighting a rearguard action.

So far, they have had Judge Michael R. Barrett on their side.  As
the case was proceeding, he kept the two IRS employees' testimony
secret at their request, allowing only the lawyers involved to see
the information.

Papers filed by the tea party groups' attorneys repeatedly made
reference to their testimony in documents, but it was always
redacted.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper that covers the Cincinnati
office of the IRS that initially handled tea party groups'
applications and that Ms. Lerner initially blamed for the
targeting, has been fighting to make her version of events public.

The paper renewed that request last month, the day the government
and the tea party groups announced their settlement.  The paper
has argued that there is no "clear and imminent danger" to Ms.
Lerner or Ms. Paz.

Ms. Lerner has refused to talk publicly about her handling of the
tea party cases, even being held in contempt of Congress when she
botched her assertion of Fifth Amendment rights during testimony.
But the Obama Justice Department refused to prosecute the case,
saying it concluded Ms. Lerner's assertion of Fifth Amendment
rights was correct.

Under President Obama, the department, in its own investigation
into the IRS handling of tea party cases, also credited
Ms. Lerner with being one of the bright spots, saying she
attempted to curtail the targeting when she learned of it.

But the government now says that is not true.  In its settlement
last month, the government says Ms. Lerner not only didn't stop
the targeting, but also hid the behavior from superiors.
Ms. Lerner has yet to comment on that settlement. [GN]


UNITED TECH: "Millman" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled OPAL MILLMAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, LEAR CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to
United Technologies Automotive Inc., ANDREW DAIRY STORE, INC.,
L.D. WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as successor to Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00312-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa
L. Springmann entered an order denying motion to certify class as
premature, but without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate
juncture of the case.

The Court also denies as moot the Rule 12(f) motion to
Strike the first amended complaint.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bJ3XRU9s


US CARGO: Hall Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hall, Dustin Bryan and Nick Thompson, Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned David Hall et al. v. U.S. Cargo and Courier
Service, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00330-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), ask the
Court to enter an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
       Labor Standards Act class as defined herein;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
       to:

       All individuals who have performed or currently perform
       delivery services for the Defendant as delivery Drivers
       within the State of Ohio, at anytime from March 15, 2014
       through and including the present and until the final
       resolution of the case, and who have not been paid the
       statutory minimum and/or overtime wage during anytime in
       their employment (hereinafter "the FLSA Class");

   (3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
       order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0rASyJjm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          Molly K. Tefend, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Mark Weiker, Esq.
          ALBEIT WEIKER, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 519-6918
          E-mail: mark@awlawohio.com


VALBIN CORP: Court Grants Saleh's Motion to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RESHAD SALEH, the Plaintiff, v. VALBIN
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00593-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order:

   1. granting Saleh's motion to conditionally certify a
      collective action comprising:

      "all current and former role players who worked for Valbin
      Corporation at Fort Hunter Liggett at any time between
      February 6, 2014 and the present";

   2. directing Saleh to submit for the Court's approval a
      revised Proposed Notice and a revised Consent to Sue Form
      incorporating changes within threedays of the date of this
      Order;

   3. directing Valbin to provide Saleh with an electronic
      importable list of all current and former role players who
      were employed by Valbin at Camp Hunter Liggett at any time
      since February 6, 2014 within 10 days of the date of this
      Order; and

   4. directing Saleh to mail Notice of this action and the
      Consent to Sue Form to the potential collective action
      participants within 30 days of the date of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hb5Om7Sy


WAFFLE HOUSE: Job Applicants Consolidate FCRA Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that former job
applicants who claim Waffle House violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) with background check reports have filed a
new complaint that "consolidates claims brought by 23 plaintiffs
in two Waffle House class action lawsuits filed earlier this
year," according to a report from TopClassActions.com.

Top Class Actions reports the first lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in April 2017.
Plaintiff William Jones filed the second lawsuit in the same
court, claiming "he was denied a new job because of background
check results he never had a chance to explain or correct."

Top Class Actions reports the plaintiffs claim defendant Waffle
House failed to provide them with both a copy of the background
check report and the document "A Summary of Your Rights Under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act" before taking adverse action against
them as required by the FCRA:

Employers are expected to provide an applicant with a "pre-adverse
action notice" before taking any adverse employment action based
on the information in the background check.  The notice is
supposed to include a copy of the background report and a summary
of the applicant's FCRA rights.

The consolidated class action lawsuit is Jones, et al. v. Waffle
House Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-GJK.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA is federal legislation that promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information in the
files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers
from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their background check reports. [GN]


WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Luna" Suit in Florida Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Federal
Credit Union. The case is captioned as LUNA, EDITH, AKA:
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS
COLLECTIVE ACTION REPRESENTATIVE, the PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER, v.
WESTERN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION P.O. BOX 10018, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
90267, the Defendant, Case No. 502017CA012034XXXXMB (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Nov. 1, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.,
          1515 S. Federal Highway Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432


WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Dean Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled URIKA DEAN, on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB, LLC and ELSIE EDWARDS (DBA) WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01460-M (W.D. Okla.), Plaintiffs ask
the Court to grant conditional certification, approve proposed
notice and consent forms, order Defendant to identify putative
class members within a reasonable time frame, and authorize
Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice and consent forms to the
proposed class members.

The class is defined as:

   "current and former exotic dancers who worked for Defendant
   and were collectively subject to Defendant's intentional
   misclassification of Dancers as independent contractors in
   order to deny payment of minimum wages and other employment
   benefits owed to them, as well as the unlawful tip sharing
   policy imposed by Defendant requiring Dancers to share their
   gratuities with Defendant and other employees".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vTVzad03

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jdw@federmanlaw.com


WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACKIE IRWIN, individually and on behalf of
all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHITE CASTLE
ROSE, LLC, and BOBBY McCONAL, individually and in his official
capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00525-OLG (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class
of:

   "ALL HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF [DEFENDANT] WHO WORKED FOR THE LAST
   THREE YEARS TO THE PRESENT (1) AND WERE ALLEGEDLY PAID A
   PERCENTAGE OR COMISSION OF THEIR LOAD AND (2) WORKED OVER
   FORTY HOURS IN A WEEK. (PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS)."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
          906 West Basse, Suite 100
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 822 5666
          Facsimile: (210) 820 5650
          E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kitenge" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUHEMBWE KITENGE on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC -17-562250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Non-Exempt Employees, were not provided all straight time and
overtime wages owed, meal period and rest periods, or compensation
in lieu thereof, as mandated under the California Labor Code, and
the implementing rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare
Commission California Wage Orders.

Whole Foods is an American supermarket chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Matthew Crawford, Esq.
          TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street 2017
          3 San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 404


ZTO EXPRESS: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting The Wong Family Trusts'
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and to approve Movants'
selection of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel in
the case captioned RUSTEM NURLYBAEV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZTO
EXPRESS (CAYMAN) INC., et al., Defendants, No. 17-CV-06130
(LTS)(SN)(S.D.N.Y).

Three parties filed motions to be appointed class representative:
Nurlybaev, ZTO Investor Group, and the Wong Family Trusts.

Plaintiff Rustem Nurlybaev commenced a securities class action
against ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., various underwriters, and
certain individuals alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The action seeks damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities traceable to ZTO's registration statement and were
damaged thereby.

The Court held that the Wong Family Trusts timely filed a motion
to be appointed lead plaintiff, satisfying the requirement that it
make a motion in response to a notice of the putative class
action.  The Wong Family Trusts also have the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class of the other two
movants.  The Wong Family Trusts purchased 100,000 shares (100,000
net shares), spent $1,840,000 in net funds, and suffered
approximately $473,000 in losses.  Under all four factors under
Lax v. First Merch. Acceptance Corp., No. 97 Civ. 2715, 1997, the
Wong Family Trusts have the largest financial interest.  Moreover,
the Wong Family Trusts meet the typicality and adequacy
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Wong Family Trusts is also an adequate representative.

Plaintiff's counsel is Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a firm
with extensive experience representing classes in securities
actions.

Finally, because there is no opposition to the Wong Family Trusts'
motion, the presumption that it is the most adequate class
representative is not rebutted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 13, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qmlzkj from
Leagle.com.

Wong Family Trusts, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen
Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Rustem Nurlybayev, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Yong Chang --
achang@cfsblaw.com -- Johnson Bottini, LLP & Frederick Taylor
Isquith, Sr. -- Isquith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP.

ZTO Investor Group, Movant, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott D.
Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP.


* NZ Urged to Introduce Australian-Style Opt Out Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that New Zealand
should introduce Australian-style "opt out" class action lawsuits,
says leading class action lawyer Adina Thorn.

Class action civil lawsuits, in which groups of claimants club
together to sue companies or government departments for
compensation, can be taken in New Zealand.

But they can only be taken in the names of claimants who actively
"opt in" to them, contrasting with Australia where class actions
can be "opt out" affairs where all potential claimants in a case
are included, unless they choose to actively opt out.

Thorn's call comes amid rising calls for the booming class action
industry, and the controversial litigation lending that bankrolls
it, should be regulated by acts of Parliament.

Early next year the Law Commission will begin consulting on
whether Parliament should create a "specific legislative regime
dealing with class actions . . . and, if so, what features such a
regime should include," said commission spokesman Stephen Day.

Thorn knows there will be opposition to opt out class actions,
including potentially from state-owned enterprises and government
ministries.  The Ministry for Primary Industries is currently
being sued by kiwifruit growers over the PSA virus outbreak in
2010.

"All the big commercial enterprises, the banks and the insurers,
will be strongly opposed," Thorn said.

That's because opt out class actions are easier for lawyers to
launch, and can end up being bigger than is the case when lawyers
like Thorn have to advertise to build their books of claimants.

The Law Commission consultation, ordered by former Justice
Minister Amy Adams in August, will also probe litigation lending,
a rapidly growing industry in which private lenders make loans to
allow civil lawsuits to take place.

Countries like the UK and Australia already have litigation
lending laws supporting an industry many believe play an important
role in allowing consumers to hold deep-pocketed companies to
account.

But some, including Chief Justice Sian Elias, question the
legality of litigation funding agreements.

In a Supreme Court judgment in a case in which liquidator
Robert Walker is suing PricewaterhouseCoopers over its role as
auditor of failed finance company Property Ventures Limited, Elias
said litigation funder LPF had so much control over the case
(including to withdraw its funding, access all information about
the case, and even replace the lawyers taking the case) it
"arguably allows the claim to be treated as an investment to be
maintained to the extent to which it provides a commercial return
to the litigation funder."

"I think it well arguable that the litigation funding agreement in
issue here is contrary to law," Justice Elias said.

Her comments prompted LPF to complain to the Judicial Complaints
Commissioner, with LPF director Phil Newland calling her comments
"unfair", "unjustified" and "incorrect and highly concerning
remarks about the legitimacy of litigation funding".

LPF claimed Justice Elias, who would not comment on the complaint,
had not disclosed her husband Hugh Fletcher was chairman of IAG
New Zealand, an insurance company LPF believed to be the largest
professional indemnity insurer in the country.

"The defendants in this case, as in most of the high-profile cases
LPF Group is currently funding, have professional liability
insurance," Mr. Newland said.

Both Justice Elias and Mr. Newland believe Parliament should look
at regulating the industry, potentially ending lengthy costly
legal jousting over whether funding arrangements are legal.

"It may well be that the law should be developed further, perhaps
by legislation as in other jurisdictions," Justice Elias said in
her judgment.

There was talk of a class actions bill in 2009.

"We are disappointed these discussions have not progressed,"
Mr. Newland said.

Legislating litigation funding could also lead to litigant
protections, who can pay dearly for their loans, and cede a lot of
control to lenders.

In the PWC case, for example, LPF was entitled to a fee of 42.5
per cent share of the net recovery costs, the Supreme Court heard.
[GN]


* Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Several Class Action Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that he has not been shy in
predicting that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137
S.Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS"), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.
746 (2014) ("Bauman"), should restrain certain abusive class
action practices -- specifically those involving attempts to bring
multi-state class actions in any location other than where the
defendant is "at home" and therefore subject to general personal
jurisdiction under Bauman.  Note use of "the."  A nationwide class
purporting to sue multiple defendants "at home" in different
states shouldn't be possible at all, as BMS makes crystal clear
that each defendant's personal jurisdiction must be determined
separately.

For this reason, Reed Smith's Beck has been careful to note the
class action nature of any case that appears on his original post-
Bauman and current post-BMS cheat sheets.  The first of these
cases is Demaria v. Nissan N.A., Inc., 2016 WL 374145 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 1, 2016), an automotive consumer fraud case with eighteen
class representatives from sixteen states. Id. at *1. Following
Bauman, the court found no general jurisdiction, also rejecting a
claim of consent to general jurisdiction by registering to do
business in the forum state. Id. at *6. Specific jurisdiction
failed as to every would-be class representative except the one
resident of the forum state. Id. at *7. Plaintiffs also raised a
"pendent personal jurisdiction" claim similar to that later
rejected in BMS:

Under the circumstances of this case, where each plaintiff's claim
is predicated on the law of the particular state where he or she
purchased a car and the claims of the other plaintiffs as alleged
remain unrelated to anything that transpired in [the forum state],
imposing personal jurisdiction for all of the claims because
specific jurisdiction may lie as to this one plaintiff's claims
would run afoul of the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.

Id. at *8. The multi-state class action was no more. "The consumer
protection claims for violation of the laws of states other than
[the forum state] . . . are dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction." Id. at *14.

Then came Matus v. Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC, 2016 WL 3078745
(C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016), which involved a California consumer
fraud class action brought by an in-state resident.  After finding
no general jurisdiction under Bauman, id. at *2, the court also
found no specific jurisdiction.  The defendant's website was not
oriented towards any particular state, nor did plaintiff claim to
have used it to purchase anything from the defendant. Id. at *3.
Simply "purchas[ing the product] through an unnamed reseller" --
that is to say, stream of commerce -- was insufficient,
notwithstanding other product sales to other in-state residents.
Id. at *4.

Back in Illinois, Bauman also did in a multi-state junk fax class
action in Kincaid v. Synchrony Financial, 2016 WL 4245533 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 11, 2016).  Anticipating BMS, the court refused to find
specific jurisdiction based on forum contacts with the "putative
class members" in the forum state counting as "suit-related
contacts." Id. at *2.  Plaintiffs' general jurisdiction claims
fell far short of the "outsized proportion" of forum contacts
required to establish an exceptional case under Bauman. Id. at *3.
Nor did the defendant's initiation (as a plaintiff) of unrelated
litigation in the forum state create general jurisdiction. Id.

Next, in Bauer v. Nortek Global HVAC LLC, 2016 WL 5724232 (M.D.
Tenn. Sept. 30, 2016), "five Plaintiffs from four different
states" brought a panoply of product liability-related claims
against a non-resident defendant, purportedly as a class action.
Id. at *1. Bauman killed the out-of-state class representative's
claims, since there was nothing approaching exceptional case
facts. Id. at *6. Specific jurisdiction failed because "units
[that] were purchased and installed in [the class
representatives'] respective . . . Home States" could not possibly
"arise out of or relate to" any actions by the defendant in the
forum state. Id. at *6. "[T]he Amended Complaint does not offer
any factual allegations that the out-of-state Plaintiffs had any
dealings with the Defendants in the" forum state. Id. Therefore,
"those Plaintiffs and the classes they represent will be
dismissed." Id.

A third Illinois multi-state class action likewise failed in
Demedicis v. CVS Health Corp., 2017 WL 569157 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13,
2017).  This time, a forum plaintiff sought to assert "purely
class-based claim[s] on behalf of others for violations of similar
state consumer fraud statutes in other states." Id. at *3.  While
that claim could have been decided on the basis of non-
extraterritoriality, Demedicis disposed of them on personal
jurisdiction grounds:

Because specific personal jurisdiction is based on claims arising
out of a defendant's conduct within the forum state, this Court
has no jurisdiction over claims based on out-of-state consumer
fraud laws. . . . As Defendants argue, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction
over the defendant must be established as to each claim asserted."
Here, Plaintiff has not established personal jurisdiction over the
out-of-state claims as he is the sole connection between
Defendants and Illinois.
Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted).

In Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., 2017 WL 2470844 (S.D.N.Y. June 7,
2017), nine would-be class representatives from nine states
brought consumer protection claims against non-resident
defendants.  Decided less than two weeks before BMS, Famular threw
out all of the claims by non-resident class representatives
against the non-resident defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  Anticipating BMS, Famular held that "the Court must
determine whether there is general personal jurisdiction over each
defendant" individually. Id. at *3. By then plaintiffs had given
up arguing "exceptional case" general jurisdiction, and the court
rejected their consent by virtue of registration to do business
argument. "[T]he Court agrees with defendants that . . . a foreign
defendant is not subject to the general personal jurisdiction of
the forum state merely by registering to do business with the
state, whether that be through a theory of consent by registration
or otherwise." Id. at *4. Famular also rejected specific
jurisdiction under a "pendent personal jurisdiction" rationale.
Relying in part on Demaria, Famular recognized that "neither
specific personal jurisdiction nor pendent personal jurisdiction
allow[s a court] to hear plaintiffs' claims against the foreign
defendant based on defendant's actions occurring solely outside
the forum state. Id. at *7. Good by non-forum-state class action
allegations.

BMS, of course expressly held that specific personal jurisdiction
must be decided as to each plaintiff and each defendant
separately, so that neither the presence of other, in-state
plaintiffs making similar claims, nor the presence of an in-state
defendant against which personal jurisdiction could properly be
asserted permitted the assertion of personal jurisdiction by non-
resident plaintiffs against non-resident defendants. 137 S. Ct. at
1781 (lack of specific jurisdiction "remains true even when third
parties (here, the plaintiffs who reside in California) can bring
claims similar to those brought by the nonresidents"), 1783
(personal jurisdiction requirements "must be met as to each
defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction"; the
"bare fact" of a "contract[] with" an in-state resident "is not
enough").

After BMS, a consumer protection class action alleging "violations
of the consumer protection laws of forty-eight additional [to the
forum] states and two territories" was trimmed to just the forum
state. Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Apotex Corp.,
2017 WL 3129147, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2017).  There was no
general jurisdiction against defendants not "at home" in the
forum. Id. at *4. Nor could defendants that did not sell in the
forum be subject to specific jurisdiction. Id. at *7-8 (even if
stream of commerce jurisdiction is viable, it cannot lie without
in-state sales). All of the claims asserted under the laws of the
50 non-forum jurisdictions likewise bit the dust.

Only [plaintiffs'] Pennsylvania Claims arise out of or relate to
Selling Defendants' sales of generic drugs in Pennsylvania. . . .
[T]he Non-Pennsylvania Claims do not arise out of or relate to any
of Selling Defendants' conduct within the forum state.
Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over
the Non-Pennsylvania Claims brought against Jurisdiction
Defendants. Id. at *9 (following Demaria and Demedicis).

Another multi-state (four non-forum jurisdictions) consumer class
action was trimmed in Spratley v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 4023348, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017). General jurisdiction by consent
based the non-forum defendant's registration to do business was
rejected. Id. at *3-4. BMS precluded adjudication of claims
asserted by the non-resident classes. "[T]he out-of-state
Plaintiffs have shown no connection between their claims and
[defendant's] contacts with the forum state. Therefore, the Court
lacks specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state Plaintiffs'
claims." Id. at *7. For similar reasons, plaintiffs' "different"
assertion of "pendent jurisdiction" was also rejected. Id.
(following Famular and Demaria).

In an anti-trust case, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation,
2017 WL 4217115 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), non-forum class action
allegations based on sales made by a defendant's independent
intermediate sellers were dismissed under Bauman and BMS. General
jurisdiction, by this time was not even argued. Id. at *3. The
would-be class representatives did not buy any of the defendant's
products in the forum state. Id. at *6. BMS precluded assertion of
personal jurisdiction based merely on the defendant's contract
with an independent distributor, which in turn sold into the forum
state. Id. at *9. Most significantly, Dental Supplies firmly
rejected plaintiffs' argument that personal jurisdiction
requirements should be loosened in the class action context.  "A
putative class representative seeking to hale a defendant into
court to answer to the class must have personal jurisdiction over
that defendant just like any individual litigant must." Id. at *6
(quoting Newberg on Class Actions Section 6:25 (5th ed. 2011)).

Plaintiffs attempt to side-step the due process holdings in [BMS]
by arguing that the case has no effect on the law in class actions
because the case before the Supreme Court was not a class action.
This argument is flawed. The constitutional requirements of due
process does not wax and wane when the complaint is individual or
on behalf of a class. Personal jurisdiction in class actions must
comport with due process just the same as any other case.
Id. at *9 (citation omitted).

Most recently, in McDonnell v. Nature's Way Products, LLC, 2017 WL
4864910 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2017), the plaintiffs brought class
action claims under "seven states' consumer fraud laws" in
addition to the forum state, against a non-resident defendant. Id.
at *1. Bauman and BMS killed the non-forum claims:

[A]ny injury [that non-resident plaintiffs] suffered occurred in
the state where they purchased the products. Because the only
connection to [the forum] is that provided by [resident
plaintiff's] purchase . . ., which cannot provide a basis for the
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of
nonresidents where [defendant] has no other connection to this
forum, the Court dismisses all claims . . . brought on behalf of
non-[forum]residents or for violations of [other states' consumer
protection] law without prejudice.
Id. at *4.

Thus, we are now running out of fingers for the cases that have
refused, on post-Bauman personal jurisdictional grounds to allow
class actions where the effect would be to allow non-resident
class members to sue a non-resident corporate defendant.  There is
good reason for this.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
in particular Rule 23, being "rules" are prohibited by the Rules
Enabling Act from "abridg[ing], enlarg[ing] or modify[ing] any
substantive right." 28 U.S.C. Sec2072(b). See, e.g., Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011) ("[b]ecause the
Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rule 23 to 'abridge,
enlarge or modify any substantive right,' a class cannot be
certified on the premise that [a defendant] will not be entitled
to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims")
(citations omitted).  Jurisdiction is, if anything, even more
"substantive" than the defenses in Dukes. Without jurisdiction, a
plaintiff cannot litigate anything at all. Nothing could be more
"substantive" than to create jurisdiction where none would
otherwise exist.

Fundamentally, this is why we disagree with the one decision,
Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 2017 WL
4224723 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017) that goes the other way.
Plaintiffs in Fitzhenry-Russell purported to bring a "nationwide"
class action, even though all of them were California residents
and all the causes of action were under California law . Id. at
*1, 5. The court held that because "citizenship of the unnamed
plaintiffs is not taken into account for personal jurisdiction
purposes," it was perfectly all right for the action to adjudicate
claims by non-resident class members -- who made up a "lopsided"
88% of the class -- against a non-resident corporation. Id. at *5.
Fitzhenry-Russell refused an "extension of [BMS] to class actions"
by supposing that "this may be one of the those contexts" in which
"[n]onnamed class members . . . may be parties for some purposes
and not for others" to jurisdiction. Id. That's all there is -- a
"may be." Moreover, the case quoted for that proposition, Devlin
v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2002), dealt with intervention,
not any form of jurisdiction.

Fitzhenry-Russell cited no class action case -- let alone one
since Bauman (cf. In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products
Liability Litigation, 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 858 (E.D. La. 2012)
(severing non-resident class member claims in identical situation
pre-Bauman), aff'd, 742 F.3d 576 & 753 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2014)) -
- that had permitted personal jurisdiction in a litigation tourist
situation, where non-resident absent class members were suing a
non-resident corporation. It found Plumbers' Local. 690
"unpersuasive" because it supposedly contained "no analysis" of
BMS. 2017 WL 4224723, at *5 n.4. That is a misleading
characterization because Plumbers' Local. 690 devotes four full
paragraphs to the issue, although discussing Demaria and Demedicis
rather than BMS. 2017 WL 3129147, at *9. Moreover, other than the
footnote reference to Plumbers' Local. 690, Fitzhenry-Russell
addresses neither the other class action personal jurisdiction
cases we have discussed in this post (although it must have been
aware of at least Demaria and Demedicis) nor the Rules Enabling
Act. We think that the adjective "unpersuasive" more properly
applies to Fitzhenry-Russell itself.

Thus, based on what our research has found, we think that our
prediction, made shortly after Bauman, that personal jurisdiction
would become a major obstacle to nationwide class actions based on
state laws is accurate and has even more force after BMS. Whenever
faced with a state-law class action that is structured so that a
non-resident (that is, not "at home" under Bauman) corporate
defendant would be facing claims brought by non-resident class
members (whether named or unnamed), the defendant should strongly
consider moving to dismiss that non-resident claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction. [GN]


* UK Still Not on Way of Getting US Class Actions Culture
---------------------------------------------------------
Denisa Luchian, writing for The Lawyer, reports that White & Case
Partner Marc Israel talks about the chances of the UK getting a US
class actions culture, ahead of his session at The Lawyer's
Managing Risk and Litigation conference next month.

Is Britain on its way of getting a US 'class actions culture'?

"Not any time soon. Whilst there are changes that may
superficially look like class actions in some respects in my area
of competition law -- e.g. the ability to bring opt-out collective
proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal -- there are
still a large number of differences.

"We have certainly seen a cultural shift in the willingness of
claimants to bring actions for damages following cartel and other
competition law infringements, but they are different to US-style
class actions."

Is the risk of class actions significant only for businesses with
exposure in the US?

"Not in my area of competition law.  The collective actions, as
well as follow-on damages cases, that we see here relate to
conduct that occurred in Europe.  The companies concerned may also
have been involved in anti-competitive conduct in the US -- which
may lead to litigation there -- but is often quite separate. "

Can arbitration eliminate the risk of class actions?
"In the area of competition law, I'm not sure that many damages
cases have been arbitrated.  To the extent arbitration is used it
is likely to involve the more substantial claimants so could well
reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of collective proceedings here.
"

If you hadn't become a lawyer, what would you have done instead?
"Become an architect, but was put off by another 7 years of
study."

Marc Israel is one of the 30+ speakers at this year's Managing
Risk and Litigation conference taking place in London on the 5th
December. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed in "Queen"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina has dismissed the claims against
Union Carbide Corporation in the case styled JONATHAN A. QUEEN, as
Executor of the Estate of WILLIAM HAROLD QUEEN, Deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16-CV-
00330 (M.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff's decedent, William Harold Queen, contracted
mesothelioma allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products, including during his employment as a laborer
at DuPont from 1964 until 1991. More specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges that Mr. Queen would have been exposed to asbestos both
while working as a laborer and while working around insulators who
mixed, cut, and manipulated pipe and equipment insulation.
Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges negligence, product liability,
breach of implied warranty, willful and wanton conduct, failure to
warn, and conspiracy.

Two of Mr. Queen's co-workers were offered for deposition in this
case by the Plaintiff. Both testified that they are unaware of any
asbestos exposure Mr. Queen had related to Union Carbide. The
Plaintiff has no other evidence of any exposure of Mr. Queen to
asbestos manufactured, distributed, or handled by Union Carbide.

Based on this dearth of evidence, Union Carbide contends it is
entitled to summary judgment. Union Carbide argues that under
North Carolina and Fourth Circuit law, the Plaintiff cannot show
that exposure to its product was a proximate cause of Mr. Queen's
injury. The Fourth Circuit articulated that a plaintiff must
present "evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular
basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the
plaintiff actually worked."

The Court describes that it is axiomatic that in the absence of
any demonstrated exposure, a defendant's product cannot be a
factor, much less a substantial factor, in a plaintiff's disease.
The Court concludes that because the Plaintiff has not provided
any evidence that Mr. Queen was exposed to any Union Carbide
asbestos-containing product, the Plaintiff's claims fail. Because
Union Carbide has shown that there is no genuine dispute of any
material fact, the Court says that Union Carbide is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 7, 2017 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8mb6r5o from Leagle.com.

JONATHAN A. QUEEN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM HARLD
QUEEN, DECEASED, Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC.

JONATHAN A. QUEEN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM HARLD
QUEEN, DECEASED, Plaintiff, represented by JANET WARD BLACK, WARD
BLACK LAW.

DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
MOFFATT G. MCDONALD, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., SCOTT E.
FRICK, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., W. DAVID CONNER, HAYNSWORTH
SINKLER BOYD, P.A. & CHARLES M. SPRINKLE, III, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER
BOYD, P.A..

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M.
TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by TRACY E.
TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, TRAVIS ANDREW
BUSTAMANTE, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP & WILLIAM
MICHAEL STARR, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
KEITH E. COLTRAIN, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Denies Bid for Writ of Mandamus
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fourteenth District has
issued a memorandum opinion denying the petition for writ of
mandamus filed by Jolanta Stephenson, Relator.

In her petition, the Relator asks the court to compel the Hon.
Mark Davidson, presiding pre-trial judge for asbestos multi-
district litigation cases and visiting judge for the 11th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, to vacate his orders denying
Relator's motion to remand the action to the 134th District Court
of Dallas County, and motion to reconsider.

To obtain mandamus relief, the Court explains that the Relator
generally must show both that the trial court clearly abused its
discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.
The Court finds, however, that the Relator has not established
that she is entitled to mandamus relief.

The case is IN RE JOLANTA STEPHENSON, Relator, No. 14-17-00903-CV,
(Tex. App. 14d).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 7, 2017 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwfrf9q from Leagle.com

Eugene Zemp Dubose, for Jolanta Stephenson, Relator.

Clayton E. Devin, Esq. -- cdevin@macdonalddevin.com -- and Bryan
Gerald Rutherford, Esq. -- brutherford@macdonalddevin.com -- at
Macdonald Devin, for TNP Oakwood Tower 1, LLC a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, BF Oakwood Tower LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Et Al., Real party in interest.

Kirk Florence, Esq. -- Kflorence@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Stuart
C. Atwell, Esq. -- Satwell@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Jason
Steed, Esq. -- JSteed@kilpatricktownsend.com -- at Kilpatrick
Townsend, for LSBC, LLC d/b/a Lone Star Building Services, a
Limited Liability Company, Real party in interest.

Scott B. Aston, Esq. -- dstone@grayreed.com -- at Gray Reed, for
Baruch Montiel d/b/a 911 Construction Company, Real party in
interest.

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Pitre" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denies Defendants Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
and Lamorak Insurance Company's motion for review of the
Magistrate Judge's order granting Plaintiffs Diane Pitre and her
children's leave to amend their complaint.

The Court also denies the motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs
and retains federal question jurisdiction in the case DIANE PITRE,
ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-
7029, (E.D. La.).

Stewart Pitre worked as a pipefitter for Avondale Shipyard in
Avondale, Louisiana from 1963 to 1972. Mr. Pitre developed lung
cancer, allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos at Avondale
Shipyard, and passed away on July 15, 2016.

On April 6, 2017, Mr. Pitre's wife and children filed an action in
state court for wrongful death and survival.6 Plaintiffs named
numerous defendants, including Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Avondale)
and Foster Wheeler, LLC.

The Plaintiffs' original petition included, among other causes of
action, failure to warn and other negligence claims against
Avondale, and strict products liability and failure to warn claims
against Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler allegedly produced boilers
with asbestos-containing insulation that Mr. Pitre came into
contact with aboard vessels at Avondale.

On June 27, 2017, Chester Rodrigue, a former coworker of Mr.
Pitre's, testified in a deposition that he worked with Mr. Pitre
on Destroyer Escorts built by Avondale. On June 30, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a first amended petition adding Occidental
Chemical Corporation as a defendant, and asserting strict
liability claims against both Avondale and Occidental Chemical.

Avondale and its alleged insurer, Lamorak Insurance Company,
removed this case to federal court on July 24, 2017, arguing that
they are entitled to remove this matter because the claims of the
Plaintiffs are for or related to acts performed under color of
federal office while Avondale was acting under the authority of an
officer of the United States.

On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs requested and the magistrate
judge granted leave to file an amended complaint to delete their
strict liability claims against Avondale.

Avondale and Lamorak Insurance now appeal the magistrate judge's
decision, arguing that the Plaintiffs' amendment is improper
because it is intended to defeat federal jurisdiction, and that
the amendment is futile because it cannot destroy federal
jurisdiction.

Avondale removed this case to federal court based on its work as a
military contractor. Avondale argues that it is a person under the
statute, it was acting under an officer of the United States, the
use and installation of asbestos-containing materials was required
by its contracts with the U.S. Navy, and it has colorable federal
defenses to plaintiffs' claims.

The Court explains that the purpose of the federal officer removal
provision is to protect the lawful activities of the federal
government from undue state interference. Additionally, the Court
says that removal does not require the consent of co-defendants --
it "authorizes removal of the entire case even though only one of
its controversies might involve a federal officer or agency."

The Plaintiffs argue that, in light of the amended complaint, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be
remanded to state court. The Plaintiffs represent that the
addition of strict liability claims against Avondale in the first
amended petition was an inadvertent error. The Plaintiffs explain
that they requested leave to amend in state court to add a new
defendant, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and never requested
leave to add new claims against Avondale. The Plaintiffs, however,
acknowledge that their second amended complaint is intended to
support their motion to remand.

The evidence before the Court indicates that the U.S. Government
required the use of asbestos at Avondale for most of the time
period between 1963 and 1972 when Mr. Pitre was employed there.
Avondale submits the affidavits of Commander Thomas McCaffery,
Edward Blanchard, and Danny Joyce.

McCaffery, a retired Commander in the U.S. Navy (Reserve), attests
that the contracts between Avondale and the U.S. Government to
build warships specified the materials that could be used in the
construction of U.S. Navy ships. He further represents that, until
mid-1969, all approved pipe insulation products for use on pipes
whose normal operating temperature exceeded 370 degrees Fahrenheit
contained asbestos.

Blanchard, a former supervisor and vice-president at Avondale,
attests that all aspects of work on federal vessels at Avondale
were performed under the close and detailed surveillance of the
U.S. Navy and other federal agencies. Further, Blanchard states
that federal inspectors retained ultimate decision-making
authority over all construction, and that every component
installed on a Navy vessel had to be on the Navy's list of
qualified products.

Joyce, a former industrial hygienist at Avondale, represents that
he has reviewed the contracts and specifications pertaining to the
construction of federal vessels at Avondale. He states that
federal inspectors monitored the site to ensure that the supplies
used were those required by the contracts and specifications,
including asbestos-containing insulation and other asbestos-
containing materials.

Thus, Avondale has provided evidence that the U.S. Navy required
it to comply with precise specifications, including the use of
asbestos-containing pipe insulation. The evidence suggests that
the U.S. Government was at least as knowledgeable about the
dangers of asbestos as Avondale. Joyce attests that Avondale did
not have any information regarding the hazards of asbestos that
was not known by the federal government, including the U.S. Navy.
Avondale also offers the deposition testimony of Dr. Richard
Lemen, a retired Assistant Surgeon General of the United States,
who testified that the U.S. Public Health Service collected and
reviewed scientific literature on asbestos beginning in the 1930s.

The Court finds that Avondale has stated a colorable defense of
federal contractor immunity to plaintiffs' strict liability
claims. As such, Avondale's notice of removal is valid, and
consequently, the Court properly acquired jurisdiction over this
matter. The Court notes that although an amended complaint
deleting federal claims may permit a discretionary remand, it does
not destroy federal jurisdiction over a validly removed case.
Thus, the Court finds that remand is not justified. Further, the
Court says that Foster Wheeler was not affected by the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint, and remains entitled to a federal forum under
the federal officer removal statute.

The Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court properly acquired
jurisdiction, the amended complaint has removed the federal
question in this case and the Court has discretion to remand the
remaining state law claims. Although the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint deleted the strict liability claims as to Avondale, the
Plaintiffs continue to press strict liability claims against
Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler asserts in its opposition to the
motion to remand that it independently qualifies for federal
officer removal and has a colorable federal defense in this case.

The Plaintiffs contend that Foster Wheeler has forfeited its right
to assert federal jurisdiction under section 1442(a)(1) because it
did not join in the original notice of removal or file its own
timely supplemental notice of removal.

The Court points out that when two defendants independently assert
federal officer removal jurisdiction, separate notices of removal
are not strictly required to protect each defendant's right to a
federal forum. Although Foster Wheeler was served before removal,
the Court finds that Foster Wheeler has asserted a federal
contractor defense in its answer to the Plaintiffs' state court
petition, and incorporated this defense into its answer to the
amended petition in federal court. Given that Avondale properly
removed this matter to federal court, the Court finds that barring
Foster Wheeler from invoking federal jurisdiction simply because
it did not file a separate notice of removal would be an
impermissibly "narrow, grudging interpretation" of section
1442(a)(1).

The Court finds that Foster Wheeler has presented sufficient
evidence to show that it satisfies the requirements of section
1442(a)(1) as to Plaintiffs' design defect claims. Further, Foster
Wheeler has shown that it acted under the U.S. Navy's directions
during the period that Mr. Pitre was employed at Avondale, and
that an apparent causal nexus exists between its actions under
color of federal office and Plaintiffs' design defect claims.
Foster Wheeler has also offered evidence that it was required to
construct its boilers in conformity with detailed Navy
specifications, that its relationship with Mr. Pitre derived from
its official authority to provide products to the Navy, and that
this authority relates to Foster Wheeler's alleged use of asbestos
in its boiler products.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 6, 2017 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fbvkh2 from Leagle.com.

Diane Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward
Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq. --
info@mbfirm.com -- Martzell & Bickford.

Diane Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward
Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile
Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell &
Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R.
Doody, Martzell & Bickford.

Wesley Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward
Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell &
Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law,
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue,
Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford.

Rachel Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward
Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell &
Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law,
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue,
Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford.

Katie Gibbens, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward
Pitre, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell &
Bickford, Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law,
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue,
Martzell & Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford.

Kurt Pitre, Individually and on behalf of decedent, Steward Pitre,
Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford,
Heidi M. Gould, Heidi Mabile Gould, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J.
Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Roshawn H. Donahue, Martzell &
Bickford & Spencer R. Doody, Martzell & Bickford.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., formerly known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams,
LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A.
Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C.,
Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot
L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Company
formerly known as Viacom, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot
L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S. Roberts,
Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz,
LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP,
Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, As alleged insurer of Wayne
Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Esq. -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq. --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq. -- jburg@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Esq. -
- msemmes@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC
& Troy Nathan Bell, Esq. -- tbell@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Lamorak Insurance Company, Erroneously referred to as One Beacon
American Insurance Company, in its capacity as alleged insurer of
deceased Avondale Executive Officers Henry Zac Carter, C.E.
Hartzman, and Hettie Dawes Eaves, Defendant, represented by Samuel
Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam
Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, David Michael
Melancon, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter
Trapolin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Gustave A.
Fritchie, III, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Timothy
Farrow Daniels, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace,
III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams,
LLP.

Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Incorrectly named as Uniroyal, Inc.
formerly known as United States Rubber Company, Inc., Third Party
Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP & Amy Louise Maccherone, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C.
Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot
L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly L. Long,
Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot
L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S.
Roberts, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn,
Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M.
Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Magistrate's Order in "Savoie"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Review
Magistrate Judge's Order granting Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s Motion
for Leave to File Counterclaim in the case styled LORITA M.
SAVOIE, ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., Civil Action
No. 15-1220, (E.D. La.).

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "A
magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion may be
appealed to the district court. When objections are raised to such
a ruling the district judge must consider them timely and "modify
or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law." Under this standard, a magistrate judge's
decision must be affirmed unless "on the entire evidence [the
court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed."

The Court finds that no such mistake has been made and that the
Plaintiffs have not shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is
"clearly erroneous or contrary to law."

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 5, 2017 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8svc2mw from Leagle.com

Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Plaintiff,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement.

Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Plaintiff,
represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren
Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr.,
Roussel & Clement.

Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., also known as Blaine Joseph Savoie, Jr.,
Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel &
Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A.
Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc formerly known as Avondale Marine
Ways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher
Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams,
LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Executive Officer of Huntington Ingalls
Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard
Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Executive Officer of Huntington Ingalls
Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard
Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as Successor to Commercial
Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American
Employers' Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel
Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam
Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J.
O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin
Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., successor to Rhone Poulenc AG Company,
formerly Amchem Products, Inc., formerly Benjamin Foster Company,
Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP,
Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc,
III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis
Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H.
Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Eagle Inc, formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP &
Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C.,
Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano,
Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-
Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Successor to McCarty Branton, Inc., and
Predecessor and Successor to McCarty Insulation Sales, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins,
III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell
Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas
Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill, LLP.

Travelers Indemnity Company, formerly known as Aetna Casualty &
Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson,
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon
Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz
LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporatioin, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III,
Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown,
Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R.
Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian
C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen
Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP,
Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin
Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin
Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne
Manufacturing Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye
N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, as successor to the interest of U.S.
Plywood Corporation, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter
G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Erin
Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue
Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin
Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue
Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin, Cross Defendant, represented
by Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Eagle, Inc., formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc.,
Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP &
Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP & Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Anne Elizabeth
Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jamie M.
Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-
Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot
L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin
Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C.,
Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. &
Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Esq. --
efoundas@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier
deBlanc, III, Pugh, Esq. -- fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Esq. --
mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St.
Julien, Esq. -- mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Daniel J. Caruso, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Troy
Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C.,
Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. &
Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella,
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Successor to McCarty Branton, Inc., and
Predecessor and Successor to McCarty Insulation Sales, Inc., Cross
Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP &
Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue
Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Kevin
Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue
Williams, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Counter Defendant,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Lorita M Savoie, Widow of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr. Counter Claimant,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the
First Department unanimously affirmed the Order entered by the New
York Supreme Court on January 13, 2016, which, to the extent
appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied Defendant/Third-
Party Defendant LVI Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the Labor Law Section 200 and common-law negligence
claims and all third-party and cross claims against it, and
granted Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim
against LVI.

The Court finds that LVI Services failed to establish prima facie
that plaintiff was not exposed to toxins at sufficient levels to
cause his claimed respiratory illness. The record contains ample
evidence of Plaintiff's exposure to toxins at the construction
site, and LVI Services' expert did not opine that those toxins
were not capable of causing plaintiff's respiratory illness. Nor
did LVI Services establish prima facie that it was not responsible
for the release into the air of toxins that allegedly caused
plaintiff's respiratory illness.

LVI Services was responsible for asbestos abatement, lead
abatement, and concrete demolition on the job site. The record
shows that there was demolition going on throughout the building
generating dust clouds thick enough to be visible in progress
photographs and that there were widespread complaints about the
air quality, including the presence of silica dust, which occurs
naturally during concrete demolition.

Under its subcontract with defendant/third-party defendant Turner
Construction Company, LVI Services must defend and indemnify
Turner Construction and defendant/third-party defendant MSG
Holdings, L.P., for liability and loss, including legal fees,
merely claimed to have resulted from injury arising out of or in
connection with LVI Services' work, unless and until the injury is
determined to have been caused by the negligence or willful
misconduct of Turner Construction, MSG Holdings, or another of
Turner's subcontractors. Since there has not yet been a
determination of that issue, Turner Construction and MSG Holdings
are entitled to conditional summary judgment on their claim
against LVI Services for contractual indemnification.

The appealed case is MARTIN FLYNN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TURNER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, LVI
SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
ET AL., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. FIVE STAR ELECTRIC
CORP., Third-Party Defendant, LVI SERVICES, INC., Third-Party
Defendant-Appellant, 5120, 113859/11, 590270/13, (N.Y. App. Div.
1st Dept.)

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated December 5, 2017
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wcb94r from Leagle.com

McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy,
Esq. -- pbrophy@mmglawyers.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Barry M. Sweeney, New Suffolk (Barry M. Sweeney of
counsel), for Martin Flynn, respondent.

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP, New York ( Steven A. Torrini
of counsel), for Turner Construction Company and MSG Holdings,
L.P., respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkland SAC Stricken From Record
--------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Gargiulo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi has issued an order striking Plaintiff
Johnny Kirkland's Second Amended Complaint from the record for
non-compliance for failure to obtain written consent from the
Defendant or obtain leave of court before filing his Second
Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "a party may
amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave."

The case is JOHNNY KIRKLAND, Plaintiff, v. INGALLS SHIPYARD,
CORPORATION c/o J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust, Defendant, Civil
Case No. 1:17-cv-135-HSO-JCG, (S.D. Miss.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 5, 2017 is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ya8f7nkk from Leagle.com

Johnny Kirkland, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, c/o J.T. Thorpe Settlement
Trust, Defendant, represented by Richard P. Salloum, FRANKE &
SALLOUM, PLLC & Traci M. Castille, FRANKE & SALLOUM, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Has $102.8MM Reserve at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. has recorded a total litigation
reserve of US$102.8 million as of September 30, 2017 with respect
to potential liability arising from the its asbestos-related
litigation, 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.

Gardner Denver states, "The Company has also been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related
personal injury lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these suits allege
exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically
the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.

"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither
the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the
lawsuits.  Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the
Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica
exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities
or produced such products are no longer in operation.  This has
led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name
in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.

"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure
from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority
of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to
alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the
Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility;
various potential defenses available to the Company with respect
to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable
matters.  However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential
insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an
adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability
to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that
the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.  "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" on
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet include a total
litigation reserve of US$102.8 million and US$108.5 million as of
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 respectively, with
respect to potential liability arising from the Company's
asbestos-related litigation.  Asbestos related defense costs are
excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded
separately as services are incurred.  In the event of unexpected
future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution
of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has also pursued
litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where
necessary.  The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for
probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$97.3
million and US$97.3 million as of September 30, 2017 and December
31, 2016 which was included in "Other assets" on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes
are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors.  The
actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or
lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly
from the assumptions.  There are a number of key variables and
assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be
filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these 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 the Company has reached
settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess
insurance carriers with whom the Company has not yet achieved
settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's
insurance carriers.  Other factors that may affect the 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.  The Company makes the
necessary adjustments for the asbestos liability and corresponding
insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or
circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Insurance Suit at Phase II
------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that an insurance coverage
lawsuit related to asbestos matters against Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London, et al., is still proceeding at Phase II
discovery process.

The case was filed by Gardner Denver, Inc., on July 9, 2010, in
the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").

The Company states, "In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among
other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to
honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including
payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company.  In October
2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer
defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for
approximately the amount of such defendant's policies which were
subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case has been proceeding
through the discovery and motions process with the remaining
insurer defendants.

"On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of
that discovery and motions process ("Phase I").  Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights
under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's
former owners rather than to the Company itself.

"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now
rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally
required.  The case is now proceeding through the discovery
process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase II")."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 171 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company had 171 individual cases pending in
state and federal courts throughout the United States 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.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of September 30, 2017, there were 171 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 174 cases as of June 30, 2017, 146
cases as of March 31, 2017 and 115 cases as of December 31, 2016.
During the three months ended September 30, 2017, 22 new cases
were filed and 25 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal,
appeal or settlement.

"During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, 99 new cases
were filed and 43 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal,
appeal or settlement.  The value of settlements in the quarter and
the year-to-date period presented was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to each such period's results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jh2uRo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,200 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had 61,200 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, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  To date, we have disposed
of approximately 127,400 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement.  The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately US$529 million through September 30, 2017 and US$517
million through December 31, 2016.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries.  We
recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$177 million and
US$171 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively.  In determining the estimate of our asbestos
liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period.  Due
to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on
new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future
may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that
increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities.  After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance
carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our
insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an
amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers.  We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$121
million and US$123 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, respectively.  We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during
the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability.  Of these
amounts, US$12 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016.
The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately
US$430 million in excess level policy limits applicable to
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under
coverage-in-place agreements.  We also had additional unsettled
excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs.
We had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as
well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos
premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated.  Coverage under insurance policies is
subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including,
but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product
exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or
premises and disease alleged.  Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xnsBx9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $60MM Unfavorable Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation recognized a net unfavorable prior year
development of US$60 million before consideration of cessions to
the Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) for the nine months ended
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.

CNA Financial states, "Based upon the Company's annual A&EP
reserve review, net unfavorable prior year development of US$60
million and US$200 million was recognized before consideration of
cessions to the LPT for the nine months ended September 30, 2017
and 2016.  The 2017 unfavorable development was driven by modestly
higher anticipated payouts on claims from known sources of
asbestos exposure.  The 2016 unfavorable development was driven by
an increase in anticipated future expenses associated with
determination of coverage, higher anticipated payouts associated
with a limited number of historical accounts having significant
asbestos exposures and higher than expected severity on pollution
claims.  While this unfavorable development was ceded to NICO
under the LPT, the Company's Net income in both periods was
negatively affected due to the application of retroactive
reinsurance accounting.

"As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the cumulative
amounts ceded under the LPT were US$2.9 billion and US$2.8
billion.  The unrecognized deferred retroactive reinsurance
benefit was US$334 million as of September 30, 2017 and December
31, 2016.

"NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its
obligations to the Company.  The fair value of the collateral
trust account was US$2.9 billion and US$2.8 billion as of
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016.  In addition, Berkshire
Hathaway Inc. guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO up to the
aggregate reinsurance limit as well as certain of NICO's
performance obligations under the trust agreement.  NICO is
responsible for claims handling and billing and collection from
third-party reinsurers related to the Company's A&EP claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tS7Qpp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,751 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., remains a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by
approximately 3,751 plaintiffs 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, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 54,573
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of which was appealed
by defendants and was remanded to the trial court for a new
trial), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and
774 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MDZR2r


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sep. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., still defends itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana, 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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits.

"We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase
agreement with Diamond M Corporation.  We are unable to estimate
our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but
do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from
this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9IU051


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.1MM Liability at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related
aggregate liability including related legal costs to US$6,042,000,
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.

Columbus McKinnon states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In
continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-
related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the
incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal
rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the
plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the
number of cases pending against it, the status and results of
broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such
activity might continue.  Based on this review, the Company has
estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable
asbestos-related personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly
uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the
difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous
variables that can affect the range of the liability.  The Company
will continue to study the variables in light of additional
information in order to identify trends that may become evident
and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is
probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,700,000 and US$7,400,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
September 30, 2017.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates US$6,042,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2017.
The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation.  This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program.  Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12
months.  Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.
When the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a
gain will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is
recovered.  In July 2017, the Company received a US$1,741,000
settlement payment, net of legal fees, from one of its insurance
carriers as partial reimbursement for asbestos-related expenses.
This partial payment has been recorded as a gain in cost of
products sold.  The Company is continuing its actions to recover
further past costs and to cover future costs."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,200 claims
were pending for allege exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may
have performed at various locations.  We have never been a
manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products.  Over
the past several decades and through September 30, 2017, we have
been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
involving approximately 6,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims,
approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 5,000 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

"Over the past several decades and through September 30, 2017, the
claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have
been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of
approximately two thousand dollars per claim.  We review each case
on its own merits and make accruals based on the probability of
loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related
expenses, if any.  Although we have seen an increase in the number
of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do not
believe the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will have a
material adverse effect on our future results of operations,
financial position or cash flow, and at September 30, 2017, we had
approximately US$7,100 accrued for liability and related expenses.
With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable
estimate of liability, if any.

"While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017 that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) still has an
obligation to indemnify the company from liabilities associated
with asbestos matters.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure.  We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend
ourselves vigorously.  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement
among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend
and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters,
including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs
associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from
past sales of ITT's legacy products.  We believe ITT Corporation
(now ITT LLC) remains a substantial entity with sufficient
financial resources to honor its obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements.  The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence
of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold
prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to
limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in
the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities.  The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire.  Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to
be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications.

"On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis.  As the parent of
Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kDXLA9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries remain as defendants in
legal proceedings on alleged asbestos exposure, 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, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities.  As of September 30, 2017, December 31, 2016 and
September 30, 2016, our condensed balance sheets included
liabilities for these legal actions of US$15.9 million, US$13.6
million and US$22.9 million, respectively.  These liabilities do
not include costs associated with legal representation.

"Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties
associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is
reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially
adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of
operations.

"In connection with the Acquisition, TDCC retained liabilities
related to litigation to the extent arising prior to the Closing
Date.  In addition to the aforementioned legal actions, we are
party to a dispute relating to a contract termination.  The other
party to the contract has filed an Amended Demand for Arbitration
alleging, among other things, that Olin breached the contract and
claims damages in excess of the amount Olin believes it is
obligated for under the contract.  The arbitration hearing is
scheduled for the fourth quarter 2017.  Any additional losses
related to this contract dispute are not currently estimable
because of unresolved questions of fact and law but, if resolved
unfavorably to Olin, they could have a material effect on our
financial results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2GXsrs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Defends Numerous Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend against numerous lawsuits in
various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,330
individual claimants, 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 vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use
of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek
damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine
dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured
by other defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of
the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against
the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past.  The Company has prevailed in all twelve cases taken to
trial, including ten of the eleven cases tried to verdict (such
trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2015, and
the cases tried in 2016 and 2017), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company.  The
remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the
close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding
that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to
support a jury verdict.  In August 2016, 3M received a unanimous
defense verdict from a jury in state court in Kentucky, in 3M's
first respirator trial involving coal mine dust.  The estate of
the plaintiff alleged that the 3M 8710 respirator is defective and
caused his death because it did not protect him from harmful coal
mine dust.  The jury rejected plaintiff's claim and returned a
verdict finding no liability against 3M.  The verdict is final as
the plaintiff did not file an appeal.  In September 2017, 3M
received a unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state
court in Kentucky in 3M's second respirator trial involving coal
mine dust.  The jury ultimately determined that the plaintiff's
claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  The plaintiff
filed a motion for a new trial.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Pb5tnc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$551MM for Respirator Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$551 million as of September 30,
2017, for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos
cases, 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 accrual excludes liabilities related to
Aearo Technologies.

3M Co. states, "The Company annually conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities in
connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of
operations, unless significant changes in trends or new
developments warrant an earlier review.

"The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims,
and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").

"As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company provides
the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The
third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend
and resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate
of its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not
limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions
underlying the Company's accrual, including, the number of future
claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of
defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness
(ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

"In the first nine months of 2017, the Company made payments for
legal fees and settlements of US$44 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation, US$10 million of which
occurred in the third quarter of 2017.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company had an accrual for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of
US$551 million.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for
future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching
the year 2050.

"The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company is seeking coverage under the policies
of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Pb5tnc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues US$18MM for Aearo Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$18 million as of September 30,
2017, for product liabilities and defense costs related to current
and future asbestos and silica-related claims associated with
Aearo Technologies, 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, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of September 30, 2017, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp.  and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of US$18 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims.  Responsibility for legal
costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently
shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American
Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
respective insurers (the "Payor Group").  Liability is allocated
among the parties based on the number of years each company sold
respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the
AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged
years of exposure of the individual plaintiff.

"Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995.  This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.

"With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica
products on or after January 1, 1997.  To date, Aearo has elected
to pay the quarterly fee.  Aearo could potentially be exposed to
additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period
covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue
its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer
able to meet its obligations in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Pb5tnc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Pillsbury Plant
----------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that, despite spending nine
months and $1.8 million in an asbestos cleanup project, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to end the long-
running contamination dispute between a business owner and local
authorities in Springfield, Illinois.

Despite the recent EPA cleanup of the former Pillsbury Mills
plant, a circuit court judge in Sangamon County refused to lift an
injunction blocking owners from the site.

The judge cited earlier asbestos violations and continued unsafe
conditions.

The EPA removed 2,200 tons of asbestos-contaminated debris, 1,160
cubic yards of bulk asbestos and considerable waste oil and
chemicals.

Left behind was harder-to-reach asbestos within the buildings on
the 18-acre site. This prompted local authorities to fence off the
abandoned property to prevent trespassers from the danger spots.

"What has really been accomplished here? We've spent $1.8 million
of taxpayers' money," part owner Joseph Chernis IV told the State
Journal-Register. "Clearly, this is about money. It's not about
cleaning the place up."

Asbestos is the naturally occurring mineral once used freely in
construction and manufacturing throughout the 20th century. It was
valued for its affordability, heat resistance and tensile
strength.

It was used extensively until the early 1980s when its toxicity
became so well known, leading to stricter regulations.

An exposure to asbestos fibers that easily become airborne can
lead to serious health issues, including asbestosis, lung cancer
and mesothelioma.

Dispute Continues in Springfield

Chernis believes his company, P. Mills LLC, should be allowed to
resume work at the salvage site, promising 45 percent of the
proceeds toward additional cleanup costs.

His plan was to sell off parcels of the land in a surplus property
auction earlier this year. That auction was blocked by
contamination concerns.

The original flour milling plant, which was built in 1929, has
been closed since 2001. It was once a booming Pillsbury processing
and distribution factory that produced a wide range of products,
including cereals, breads, flours, cornmeal and grits.

The emergency EPA cleanup began early in 2017, following the
failure of P. Mills LLC to meet a series of court-ordered cleanup
deadlines.

Chernis already has pleaded guilty to federal charges of improper
asbestos cleanup. He is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 11 in U.S.
District Court.

Asbestos Abatement Would be Costly

EPA project coordinator Kevin Turner told the State Journal-
Register the remaining asbestos is not a threat to nearby
residents, but it remains a hazard for anyone entering one of the
remaining structures on the property.

It's an unknown amount [of asbestos], as I did bulk asbestos
removal, not an asbestos abatement, he said.

Turner said a complete abatement of asbestos, which is what P.
Mills LLC would be required to do, would be a costly and more
extensive operation than what the EPA recently finished.
Neighbors of the factory complex have complained for years about
the abandoned property, which has been vandalized repeatedly and
become an eyesore to the area.

It is a classic example of a problem facing many cities today.
Laws requiring costly asbestos abatement often halt the demolition
of out-of-date commercial structures that have become a nuisance
to many neighbour hoods.

Owners of the structures often are unwilling to pay or unable to
afford the abatement. It leads to penalties and fines that add to
their dilemma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts US Imports
-------------------------------------------------------
Britt E. Erickson of Chemical & Engineering News reported that the
U.S. chlor-alkali industry is feeling the hit from a Nov. 29
ruling of the Brazil Supreme Federal Court that bans the mining,
use, and commercialization of asbestos in Brazil. About 95% of the
asbestos used in the U.S. in 2016 was imported from Brazil, with
the rest coming from Russia. The chlor-alkali industry used nearly
all of the material, or about 340 metric tons, according to
estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Much of the U.S. chlor-alkali industry still uses asbestos
diaphragms to produce chlorine. The industry is phasing out such
diaphragms and replacing them with more expensive ion-exchange
membranes, but not all companies have made the switch.

Some members of Congress are raising concerns about having Russia
as the sole supplier of asbestos to the U.S. By continuing to
allow industrial use of asbestos, a known carcinogen, the
Environmental Protection Agency is protecting Russian mining at
the expense of American workers, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said
during a Dec. 7 subcommittee hearing of the House of
Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee. Pallone and other
Democrats are urging EPA to use its new authorities under the
revised Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the use of asbestos in
the U.S.

EPA announced in June that it would evaluate asbestos
manufacturing, processing, and distribution as part of an upcoming
risk assessment. Pallone asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt why
the agency is not also considering the use and disposal of the
mineral.

"The use and disposal of asbestos is the main source of risk from
asbestos," Pallone said. "If you ignore those things, you will
produce a risk assessment that fails to capture the risks to
workers and ordinary Americans and, in my opinion, will not be
scientifically valid and will not be protective of public health."
Pruitt agreed, saying disposal of asbestos is a very important
factor that we need to consider.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an advocacy
group, welcomes the Brazil court ruling. "This decision sounds a
clarion call reaffirming there is no safe or controlled use of
asbestos," says ADAO co-founder Linda Reinstein. "It will
undoubtedly impact asbestos imports and use" in the U.S., she
adds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Council Probe After Asbestos Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominica Sanda of the Australian Associated Press reported that
SafeWork NSW has launched a full investigation into a council's
management of asbestos after the material was found in several
council-owned buildings.

Asbestos has been discovered in several council-owned workplaces
in the NSW Blue Mountains including a pre-school, prompting a full
investigation backed by the state government.

SafeWork NSW launched the investigation after being made aware of
alleged asbestos mismanagement at several Blue Mountains City
Council-managed workplaces, including the preschool, library,
citizens' hall and council depot.

"This is a very significant step, but it's absolutely warranted as
the number of asbestos discoveries in the mountains and council's
poor asbestos management are alarming," Better Regulation Minister
Matt Kean said in a statement.

Asbestos was found in Wentworth Falls Pre-School, waste piles and
a building at council depots, leaf litter in the yard of another
pre-school, Lawson Library ceiling, the walls and ceilings at
Warrimoo Citizens' Hall and the Heatherbrae Cottage fireplace.

Wentworth Falls Pre-School was forced to close in late November
following the discovery and is expected to re-open in January
while repairs are made over the Christmas break.

Another 20 or so locations flagged as potential asbestos hotspots
in the region will be inspected.

SafeWork will get to the bottom of the way in which Blue Mountains
City Council has handled this very important issue we won't cop
workers or the community being exposed to danger," Mr Kean said.

Blue Mountains City Council Mayor Mark Greenhill has welcomed the
investigation saying he wants to get the job done properly.

"I am confident that we are taking the necessary steps that will
allow us to get to the truth of the matters, help us resolve any
issues and maintain community confidence in council's
performance," he said in a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA May Review "Legacy Uses" in Risk Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie A. Miller, North American Desk Editor of Chemical Watch,
Global Risk & Regulation News, reported that US EPA may be
reconsidering its decision to exclude legacy installed building
materials from its risk evaluation of asbestos, the agency's
administrator Scott Pruitt told a congressional committee.

The EPA's interpretation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act
amendments is that risk assessment should focus on current and
prospective uses. The framework rules and scoping documents for
the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under TSCA
generally exclude legacy uses of chemicals from consideration.
Instead they focus on current and prospective applications.

In questioning Mr Pruitt on December 7, Representative Frank
Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) said that ignoring the danger of
asbestos disposal will produce a risk assessment that fails to
capture the risk to workers and ordinary Americans.

"You raise a meaningful concern," Mr Pruitt answered, adding that
this issue is under active discussion at the EPA and will be
addressed.

In comments on the scoping documents, asbestos abatement
professionals argued that the most prevalent source of asbestos
exposure to the general public in the US is from existing,
deteriorating building materials containing the substance.

Mr Pallone also reiterated the complaint of Democrats and
environmental advocates that deputy assistant administrator Nancy
Beck should not have been allowed to rewrite key TSCA regulations
to benefit her former employer, the American Chemistry Council.
This he said was in flagrant violation of ethics rules.

Mr Pruitt responded that all EPA employees abide by the decisions
of the agency's ethics officials.

Hearings on an agency agenda typically involve many rounds of
questioning. But Mr Pruitt, who was making his first appearance on
Capitol Hill since his confirmation, met for only an hour with the
House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee.
The panel's chairman said Mr Pruitt had to cut the session short
to attend a meeting at the White House.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Homeless People's Shelter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angus Young of Hull & East Yorkshire News reported that BHS store
canopies which shelter homeless people to be removed after
asbestos discovery.

Entrance canopies set to be removed urgently in safety move, Hull
council say.

Suspected raw asbestos fibres have been spotted at two derelict
buildings in the city centre.

The discovery is expected to see the main entrance canopies at the
former BHS and Co-op stores being removed once they come under
full ownership of the city council.

The main BHS entrance canopy overlooking the new-look King Edward
Square currently provides shelter for groups of homeless people
who have turned the site into a makeshift camp.

The council is expected to complete the purchase of the two
derelict department stores, having already acquired the empty
neighbouring Edwin Davis building in Bond Street.

In a new report, the council's director of major projects, Garry
Taylor, said: "The majority of entrance canopies are suspected to
be constructed of asbestos insulation board, currently being
confirmed by survey and sampling work".

There was evidence in various locations around the site of these
boards clearly showing sign of damage and wear, with suspected raw
asbestos fibres visible in a number of places.

Why police were clearing away rough sleepers' belongings from
under the BHS canopy in Hull city centre.

Any building owner has a duty to manage asbestos. In this case, as
a minimum requirement, the asbestos insulation board will require
encapsulation as a matter of urgency with the preferred option
being the removal of the board along with the removal of redundant
lighting and external external fixtures.

The council's current plan is to start demolition of the empty
buildings in June, having set aside รบ5.3m to acquire them and
clear the site for a proposed mixed retail, leisure and housing
development.

Around GBP4m of that is expected to come via funding from the
Humber Local Enterprise Partnership.

The current timetable forecasts demolition should be completed by
December next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountain Hospital in Asbestos Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Fordham of 4BC1116 News Talk reported that a public hospital
is the latest site caught up in the Blue Mountains asbestos
scandal.

A report reveals serious asbestos fears still exist at the Blue
Mountains District ANZAC Memorial Hospital, despite first being
identified 20 years ago.

Priority one, disintegrating asbestos has been found in the
women's and children's ward, the child assessment and development
unit and medical imaging among other locations.

It comes as Safe Work NSW launches a full investigation into
asbestos cover-ups by the Blue Mountains City Council, with 17
improvement notices and four prohibition notices issued so far.

Better Regulation Minister Matt Kean tells Ray, "the situation is
nothing short of a disgrace".

"The whole thing up there seems absolutely shambolic. No-one at
council seem to have any idea what their responsibilities are or
what actually is going on."

"I've ordered that Safe Work commence a full investigation into
the asbestos management practices of Blue Mountains City Council.

"And let me tell you this Ray, if there is a breach of the law
here, I think that's very strong grounds to take further steps."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Water to be Remedied by Filtration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Mcphee of The Timaru Herald reported that an inline
filtration plant, estimated to cost about $20,000, is being
considered as a temporary fix to the asbestos problems in Temuka.

The Timaru District Council is still trying to find the source of
asbestos in the water after the substance was found blocking the
filters on people's taps, washing machines, and sprinklers in the
town.

According to the South Canterbury Medical Officer of Health, Dr
Daniel Williams, the town's water is safe to drink and to use, but
a water tanker remains available for people to fill containers as
an alternative.

Council communications manager Stephen Doran said the filtration
plant would be easy to install but would mean a drop in water
pressure for the town, as the filter slowed down the supply.

"We are investigating it," Doran said.

The tanker is stationed outside the Temuka Library and Service
Centre.

It was first brought in on December 6 but was diverted due to
problems with the Downlands water supply scheme, with residents
offered bottled water.

Doran said 750 bottles of water had been given out.

The council was alerted to presence of asbestos in the water after
residents complained about low water pressure and something
clogging their filters but the substance was initially thought to
be cottonwood fluff.

On Tuesday, Doran said the council was still waiting for
comprehensive results back after sending water samples from eight
areas of the network away to be tested, but some basic preliminary
results had been obtained.

"It gives us some intelligence as to working out where the issues
are."

Infrastructure group manager Ashley Harper said in a statement
samples were being sent away on a daily basis.

One particular pipe which was 7km long and dated back to 1964 was
suspected to be causing the issue, and Doran said the test results
obtained so far supported that theory.

In the meantime, pipe specialists who knew "everything there is to
know about pipe composition and materials" were coming to look at
the pipes.

About half of the town's 54km pipe network was made of asbestos,
Doran said.

The council had been to the camping ground and cleaned out the
system.

Residents who have removed the substance themselves are being
asked to wet the substance and double bag it -- while wearing
gloves -- and take it to the Temuka Transfer Station for disposal.

Doran said there were 10 calls about the problem from people
wanting their filters unblocked, and there were also a few calls
on Monday.

The council was using a number of contractors to remedy the issue.

"We are busy but it's manageable.

The distribution of calls is slightly random."

The council was no longer flushing out the main system and had
moved onto smaller areas, Doran said.

Pipes were not currently replaced as a matter of course.
"If a pipe is failing it will be replaced."

Speeding up the replacement process was one of the long-term
options available to the council.

Temuka Primary School principal Grant Willocks said it was
"business as usual for the school, with water available for
children who wanted it".

However, he hoped the issue would be cleared up sooner rather than
later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Facility Needs $45,000 to Remove Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Fatimah Waseem of The Future of Chemistry reported that
Environmental testing of Reston Association's Central Services
Facility found the building, which is slated for major
renovations, contained asbestos, prompting RA to use $45,000 in
unspent, approved dollars to remove the substance prior to
demolition.

RA's Board of Directors will consider the request at a meeting on
Thursday. According to the board's agenda packet, lab results
taken throughout the building were positive for asbestos in floor
tiles, pipe insulation, sink undercoating, skylights and exterior
pipe tar. The cost of the project will cover abatement, air
cleaning and follow-up air testing.

"Before full demolition can begin and to ensure the safety of work
crews as well as RA staff, an asbestos abatement procedure must be
completed," according to the packet.

The renovation of the Central Services Facility is one of five
capital projects put on hold for most of the year. Plans to
renovate the 35-year-old building on 12250 Sunset Hills Road have
been suggested for nearly three years. The facility is responsible
for maintenance and care of Reston's facilities, including
pavilions, community buildings, garden plots and pathways.

The project will include the following upgrades:

   * bathroom in warehouse building for environmental staff
   * additional exit and ADA accessibility for warehouse office
area
   * replace all windows in main building
   * add to bathroom capacity in main building to meet volume
needs
   * address leaking roof
   * improve reception area for staff and RA members
   * provide HVAC system for shop area
   * install security system
   * upgrade LAN connectivity
   * provide adequate workspaces
   * provide modular training space


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co. Must Pay Fired Worker
-----------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Valentic of EHS Today reported that OSHA orders Champagne
Demolition LLC to pay restitution after worker is fired for
reporting unsafe work conditions.

On June 10, 2010, a worker at Champagne Demolition LLC informed
supervisor about how asbestos removal at a New York school
worksite was being performed incorrectly.

The Albany-based demolition and construction disposal contractor
fired the worker and verbally threatened the employee. In
response, the worker filed a complaint with OSHA, which opened an
investigation through the agency's regional Office of
Whistleblower Protection Programs in New York and found the
allegations to have merit.

"We are pleased with the jury verdict and the judge's ruling to
hold this employer accountable for violating the employee's
rights," said OSHA Regional Administrator Robert Kulick in a
statement. "Every worker has the right to report potential safety
and health hazards without fear of harassment, termination, or
retaliation."

The agency charged that Champagne Demolition and its owner, Joseph
A. Champagne, discriminated against the worker by conducting
retaliatory acts in violation of Section 11(c) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.

In a civil ruling, the United States District Court, Northern
District of New York ordered the company and Champagne to pay
$103,000 in back wages, $20,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in
punitive damages to the worker. Attorneys Allison Bowles, Amy Tai,
and Darren Cohen of the regional Office of the Solicitor in New
York litigated the case.

"This jury verdict and the judge's ruling on this case underscores
the Labor Department's commitment to ensuring that the law is
followed and employees' right to a healthy and safe workplace is
maintained," said Jeffrey S. Rogoff, New York regional solicitor
of labor.









                             *********


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  * * *