CAR_Public/171222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, December 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 253



                            Headlines

ADECCO USA: Court Resets CMC in "Shepardson" to Feb. 1
ALDINE RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: $24MM Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Oak" Suit in E.D. of New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Tineo" Suit in E. Dist. New York

AVIS BUDGET: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Order in "Mendez" Suit
BEAVERTON FOODS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit in E.D. New York
BEHR PROCESS: Misrepresents Durability of DeckOver, Leiker Claims
BUSH ROSS: Kagno Seeks Prelim. Approval of $35,000 Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Docs in Prison Gang Activity Suit Sealed

CELADON TRUCKING: Ratliff's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E. Dist. New York
CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Olson" Suit
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Sues to Recover Overtime for Bankers
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Sues to Recover Overtime for Bankers

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Payday Loan Subclass Can Recover $7.3MM
COMPUTER SCIENCES: 2nd Bid to Decertify "Strauch" Class Denied
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Delayed Burial Suit Dismissal Affirmed
CROSSTOWN COURIER: Certification of Class Sought in "Arpke" Suit
DELTA AIRLINES: "Lopez" Class Settlement Has Final Approval

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Clark" Suit
EQUIFAX INC: "Gibson" Stayed Pending JPML Ruling on Consolidation
FLORIDA HEALTH: Faces "Doyle" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
FOUR SEASONS: "DiNino" Suit Questions Charging of Resort Fees
GEO GROUP: Faces "Novoa" Suit in Central District of California

ICHIRO ASIAN FUSION: Faces "Wang" Suit in S.D. of New York
INSYS THERAPEUTIC: Del. Ch. Stays Derivative Litigation
JACO OIL CO: Faces "Hameister" Suit in California Superior Court
JBS CARRIERS: "Skau" Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "Lakkard" Suit

JEUNESSE LLC: Seeks Denial of Aboltin's Bid to Certify Class
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Faces "Castillo" Suit in District of Arizona
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Fried"
LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Affirms Remand of Aug. 2016 Flooding Suit
LOVED ONES: Non-Exempt Employees Class Certified in "Mayhew" Suit

MARTINEZ CLEANING: Faces "Llontoy" Suit in E.D. New York
MCGRATH COLOSIMO: Khalil Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Gus Harrison Inmate's Pro Se Complaint
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Thomas"
MIDWAY ISLAND: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified in "Dean" Suit

MONARCH RECOVERY: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Accord in "Hartman"
NATIONAL RESEARCH: Kessler, Labaton to Lead Shareholder Suit
ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Suit in 9th Cir.
ORACLE CORP: Shareholders' Suit Over Opower Merger Dismissed
PENNSYLVANIA: Murphy Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Circuit

PFIZER INC: Asks Supreme Court to Review Order in Rite Aid Suit
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Bower" Suit
PLATTE RIVER: Court Denies Stay of Bond Enforcement Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "DeJong" Suit in New Hampshire
RALPH PACO: Faces "Suarez" Suit in S.D. New York

SAKS INCORPORATED: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nunez" Suit
SEECO INC: Smith Appeals E.D. Arkansas Order to Eighth Circuit
SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Walters" Suit in E.D. of New York
SETON FAMILY: Stepp Moves to Certify Class of Former Nurses
SIGNIA MARKETING: "Hodge" Class Settlement Has Final Approval

SINGER FINANCIAL: KHS Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
SMART ONE: Court Adopts Denial of Approval of "Oladapo" Deal
STATE FARM: Lavelle Moves to Certify Class of Insureds in D.C.
TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Wins Bid to Decertify "Lindsey" Collective Suit
TITAN TRANSFER: Ratliff's Motion to Certify Denied as Premature

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Leavens" Suit in E.D. of New York
UNITED STATES: Ibrahim Files Suit v. U.S. Immigration Officers
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Enlistees in "Kirwa" Suit
UNITED STATES: T. D'Apuzzo Seeks to Certify Class of PACER Users
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Ruling in "Kenny", Jan. 9 Hearing Set

WELLS FARGO: CMC in "Carroll" Continued to January 2018
WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified in "Dean"
WILMOE CORP: Ark. High Ct. Refuses to Certify "Walker" Class
WISCONSIN: Campos Has Until Today to Amend Complaint
YIN & GANG: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies OHA Inspection of KSR in "Balcar"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickman Has Established Ford Motor Product Nexus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Summary Ruling Bid in Ohio Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron Granted Leave to Appeal "South" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Reverses Workers' Benefits Grant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,727 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,706 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Defends Mount Vernon Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwest Pipe Completes Contamination Review
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$74-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 830 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 23 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 123 Injury Suits at Sep. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continued Probe on Asbestos in Water Supply
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hospital Building is Asbestos-Free
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Sued for Arms Factory Clean-up Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Chester Hill Suburban Streets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Sue Contractor for Asbestos in School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Limerick Pensioner's Lung Cancer Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed in Fiji Town Old Market
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Suspension for Asbestos Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Convicted for False Asbestos Training Cert
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP500K payout to Family of Birmingham Doctor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cover-up at Pet Resorts Dural
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 High School Classrooms Closed Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Work at School District
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gould Pumps Face Raps on Ex-Worker Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plaque About to Explode in Indonesia

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Exposed to Rolls-Royce Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duo Accused of Dumping Asbestos Face Jail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prestatyn Dept. Store Worker Killed by Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Underway in Calderwood Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Add $1.1MM Cost to Airfield Rehab

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim Wins Court Battle vs. Ford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WTC Asbestos Victims Wins Against AHAC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Wildfires Unleash Asbestos Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Call for Asbestos Ban in Indonesia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Court Opened in Montana

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dangers Highlighted in Farmer's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA File Open for Asbestos Disposal in County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Snags $64.1MM Win Against Reinsurer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Dies of Heart Disease







                            *********



ADECCO USA: Court Resets CMC in "Shepardson" to Feb. 1
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District
California issued an Order to Continue Case Management Conference
in the case captioned KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Kaitlyn Shepardson and Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.,
stipulate that the Case Management Conference will be scheduled to
take place on 2/1/18 at a.m. 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7o3s5oc from Leagle.com.

Kaitlyn Shepardson, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Matthew Righetti matt@righttilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C..

Kaitlyn Shepardson, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by John Glugoski, Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti --
mike@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C., 456 Montgomery St
#1400, San Francisco, CA 94104

Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Erin Patterson -
- jepatterson@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Julie Westcott
O'Dell -- julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


ALDINE RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldine Restaurant,
LLC. The case is styled Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldine Restaurant, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05663-WB (E.D. Penn., December 18,
2017).

Aldine Restaurant, LLC is in the food and restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. K. LEE, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 EAST 39TH STREET
   SECOND FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: $24MM Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and
Providing for Notice of Settlement Proposed Settlement in the case
captioned TODD SCHUENEMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARENA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Defendants, AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED
ACTIONS, Case No. 3:10-CV-1959-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

The Court has determined preliminarily and for the purpose of
settlement that: (a) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact
common to the Class that predominate over any individual
questions; (c) the claims or defenses of Lead Plaintiff are
typical of the claims or defenses of the Class; and (d) Lead
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Class, and appoints him class representative for the Settlement
Class, and appoints Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP Lead Counsel for
the Settlement Class.

The Court further preliminarily finds that the questions of law or
fact common to Settlement Class Members predominate over any
questions affecting individual members, including but not limited
to whether Defendants made false or misleading statements in
violation of the federal securities laws, whether any Defendant
acted with scienter, and whether the alleged false or misleading
statements caused economic damage to the Class. The Court also
preliminarily finds that a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy.

On or before December 29, 2018, counsel for either the Settlement
Class or Defendants must file a sworn affidavit confirming that
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 have been satisfied, or
in the alternative, a notice explaining why those requirements do
not apply to this settlement.

A hearing will be held before the Court on April 12, 2018, at
10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Courtroom 4C, 221 West Broadway, San
Diego, CA 92101, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of
the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
should be approved by the Court; whether a Judgment as provided in
the Stipulation should be entered; whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; to determine the amount of fees and expenses that should
be awarded to Lead Counsel; and to determine the award to Lead
Plaintiff. The Court may adjourn the Final Settlement Approval
Hearing without further notice to the Class Members.

The settlement will provide $12,025,000 in cash, plus interest,
and Arena common stock with a value of $11,975,000, for a total
settlement value of $24 million, to pay claims from investors who
(i) purchased Arena common stock from March 17, 2008 through
January 27, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period), and were damaged
thereby.

Everyone who fits the following description is a Settlement Class
Member:

     all Persons who purchased Arena common stock between March
17, 2008 to January 27, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby,
excluding anyone named as a defendant in the Action including the
Company; members of the immediate family of the Individual
Defendants; Arena's directors and officers; any entity in which
any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal
representatives, heirs, successor, and assigns of such excluded
parties. Also excluded are those Persons who timely and validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class pursuant to the
Notice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8eabu9l from Leagle.com.

Todd Schueneman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer.

William Sutliff, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Mogin --
dmogin@moginlaw.com -- The Mogin Law Firm.

Jean Sutliff, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Mogin, The Mogin
Law Firm.

Arena Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M.
Heimann -- rheirnann@lchb. Corn -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Anthony Caravella, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin --
ams@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Carl Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold -
manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz &
Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and
Kilsheimer.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C.
Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley, LLP, Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn
Kelley -- mkkelley@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael
A. Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish,
Peter M. Adams -- padams@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish,
Ryan E. Blair -- rblair@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish &
Craig Edward TenBroeck -- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Jack Lief, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer, Cooley, LLP,
Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn Kelley,
Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael A. Attanasio, Cooley Godward
Kronish, Peter M. Adams, Cooley Godward Kronish, Ryan E. Blair,
Cooley Godward Kronish & Craig Edward TenBroeck, Cooley LLP.

Dominic P. Behan, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer, Cooley,
LLP, Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn
Kelley, Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael A. Attanasio, Cooley
Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams, Cooley Godward Kronish, Ryan E.
Blair, Cooley Godward Kronish & Craig Edward TenBroeck, Cooley
LLP.

William R. Shanahan, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer,
Cooley, LLP, Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary
Kathryn Kelley, Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael A. Attanasio,
Cooley Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams, Cooley Godward Kronish,
Ryan E. Blair, Cooley Godward Kronish & Craig Edward TenBroeck,
Cooley LLP.

Christy Anderson, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer, Cooley,
LLP, Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn
Kelley, Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael A. Attanasio, Cooley
Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams, Cooley Godward Kronish, Ryan E.
Blair, Cooley Godward Kronish & Craig Edward TenBroeck, Cooley
LLP.

Chris Georgakopoulos, Movant, represented by Blake M. Harper --
bmh@hulettharper.com -- Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Sarah Weber --
Sweber@hulettharper.com. -- Hulett Harper Stewart LLP.

Larry Sprowl, Movant, represented by Blake M. Harper, Hulett
Harper Stewart LLP & Sarah Weber, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP.
Maxat Amankossov, Movant, represented by Daniel J. Mogin, The
Mogin Law Firm.

David Prince, Movant, represented by Daniel J. Mogin, The Mogin
Law Firm.

Ford L. Williams, Movant, represented by Erik David Peterson --
epeterson@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Oak" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled Alesha Oak, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07347 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 18, 2017).

ARS is doing business in the accounts receivable management
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Tineo" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Francisco Tineo, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07303 (E.D.
N.Y., December 15, 2017).

Asset Recovery offers full service asset recovery management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVIS BUDGET: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Order in "Mendez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Avis Budget Group, Avis Rent a Car System LLC and
Highway Toll Administration LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled JOSE MENDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 30, 2017, the
Hon. Jose L. Linares granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit.  The Class Period began
on April 1, 2007 and ended on December 31,
2015.

The Nationwide Class and the two additional subclasses are defined
as:

   a. Nationwide Class: All United States residents who (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the United States
      during the Class Period and, (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

   b. Florida Subclass: All United States residents who (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the State of Florida
      during the Class Period, and (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

   c. New Jersey Subclass: All New Jersey residents who, (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the United States
      during the Class Period, and (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

The appellate case is captioned as Avis Budget Group, et al. v.
Jose Mendez, Case No. 17-8066, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Clerk of the Appellate Court stated that the appellate
petition included several exhibits filed under seal.  Because
filing documents under seal ordinarily requires the Court's
permission, see 3d Cir. L.A.R. 106.1 (2011), the petitioners are
directed to file a motion seeking that relief, according to the
Clerk's order.

Once filed, the petitioner's motion to seal will be referred to
the same panel of the Appellate Court that will consider the
petition, according to the Clerk's order.  The exhibits will be
held provisionally under seal pending disposition of the motion.
If the petitioners do not file a timely motion, the provisional
seal will be automatically lifted.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JOSE MENDEZ, Individually and On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Susan C. Hodge, 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
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

Defendants-Petitioners AVIS BUDGET GROUP, doing business as BUDGET
RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM LLC and HIGHWAY
TOLL ADMINISTRATION LLC are represented by:

          Paul J. Halasz, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          One Jefferson Road
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 966 8176
          Facsimile: (973) 206 6547
          E-mail: phalasz@daypitney.com


BEAVERTON FOODS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaverton Foods,
Inc. The case is styled Daniela Quiroz, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beaverton Foods, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07348-NGG-JO (E.D. N.Y., December 18,
2017).

Beaverton Foods, Inc. produces and sells condiments, non-
refrigerated horseradish, and specialty mustards for retailers and
food service providers in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


BEHR PROCESS: Misrepresents Durability of DeckOver, Leiker Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEIKER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. BEHR PROCESS CORP.; BEHR PAINT CORP.; MASCO CORP.; THE
HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-
01909-SB (D. Ore., November 29, 2017), alleges that contrary to
the Defendants' representation, DeckOver is not durable or long-
lasting.

In 2013, Behr, through a national marketing campaign, released a
new patio and deck product, exclusively through Home Depot,
branded as DeckOver, according to the complaint.  Behr and Home
Depot represented to homeowners that DeckOver was worth its
premium price (3-5 times more expensive than ordinary paints and
stains) because it was a more durable coating (5 times thicker)
and it could repair decks by filling in cracks and stopping
splinters.

Behr Process Corporation and Behr Paint Corporation are California
corporations, with their principal place of business in Santa Ana,
California.  Masco Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Taylor, Michigan.  Masco acquired
Behr Process Corporation in 1999.

The Home Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
place of business in Georgia.  The Home Depot, Inc. is the parent
company of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and describes itself in annual
reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission as the
world's largest home improvement retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-4663
          Facsimile: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          80 South 8th Street
          IDS Center, Suite 1650
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 548-5286
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: weiner@halunenlaw.com


BUSH ROSS: Kagno Seeks Prelim. Approval of $35,000 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JULIET KAGNO, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. BUSH ROSS, P.A., Case No.
8:17-cv-01468-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla.), asks preliminary approval of
the parties' class action settlement agreement, which requires the
Defendant to create a non-reversionary settlement fund of $35,000
for the benefit of the class.

The focus of this case is the alleged failure of Bush Ross to
comply with Section 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act with respect to initial debt collection letters it sent to
Florida consumers, Ms. Kagno asserts.  She also asks the Court to
certify the proposed settlement class, to appoint her as class
representative and her counsel as class counsel, and to approve
notice to the class.

The Agreement defines a settlement class comprised of:

     All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom Bush
     Ross, P.A., (c) from June 16, 2016 through November 20,
     2017, (d) in connection with an attempt to collect an
     alleged debt incurred for personal, family, or household
     purposes, (e) mailed an initial debt collection
     communication not returned to Bush Ross, P.A. as
     undeliverable that: (1) stated "[u]nless the entire sum is
     paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, we
     may proceed with action to protect the Association's
     interests, including, but not limited to the recording of a
     claim of lien, which can result in additional attorney's
     fees, costs and interest," and/or (2) stated "[i]f you
     notify the attorney named below within the said 30-day
     period that the aforesaid debt, or any portion thereof, is
     disputed, the attorney named below shall obtain written
     verification of said debt . . . and mail same to you,"
     and/or (3) failed to provide a statement that, upon the
     consumer's written request within the 30-day period after
     receipt of the communication, the debt collector will
     provide the consumer with the name and address of the
     original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

Class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will receive a
pro-rata share of the $35,000 settlement fund.  Assuming a
participation rate of 10% to 20%, claimants here would likely
receive between approximately $100 and $200 each, depending upon
class participation.  Separate from the class fund, the Defendant
also will pay: (1) all costs of class notice and settlement
administration, which will include the mailing of a detailed
notice to all potential class members as well as a straightforward
claim form and return envelope; (2) full statutory damages of
$1,000 to Plaintiff; and (3) subject to this Court's approval,
class counsel's attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of up to
$55,000.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NziW2KFq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, 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
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


CALIFORNIA: Docs in Prison Gang Activity Suit Sealed
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in the case captioned
TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW. (N.D.
Cal.)

The Court has received Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal, and the Declaration of Carmen Bremer in support of the
same.  Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), Plaintiffs have shown
that the portions of the documents to be sealed are entitled to
protection under the law because they contain confidential
information that Defendants claim could harm CDCR institutional
safety and security if disclosed.  Plaintiffs have met the "good
cause" standard for sealing portions of Plaintiff's Motion to
Extend the Settlement Agreement, portions of the Declarations of
Rachel Meeropol, Samuel Miller, and Carmen Bremer in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Settlement Agreement, as well as
Exhibits A through RR to such Meeropol declaration, Exhibits 34
through 59 to such Miller declaration, and Exhibits a through o,
t, u, w, and y to such Bremer declaration (collectively, the
"Confidential Material"), because Plaintiffs have shown that they
contain confidential information that Defendants claim would harm
institutional safety and security, and would further compromise
ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity if
disclosed.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), Plaintiffs have shown that
the portions of the documents to be sealed are entitled to
protection under the law because they contain confidential
information that Defendants claim could harm CDCR institutional
safety and security if disclosed.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74w8roy from
Leagle.com.

Todd Ashker, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang --
aaron.huang@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal Manges.

Todd Ashker, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Azure Wheeler,
Center for Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway Fl 7. New York, NY,
10012-2317, Anne Marie Cappella -- anne.capella.com -- Weil,
Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley Office, Anne Butterfield Weills --
AnneWeills@siegelyee.com -- Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro --
bamboo.obaro@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E.
Bremer -- carmen.bremer@bremerlawgroup.com -- Bremer Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Carol Strickman --
carol@prisonerswithchildren.org -- Legal Services for Prisoner
With Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone --
charles@charlescarbone.com -- Law Office of Charles Carbone,
Daniel Mark Siegel -- DanSiegel@siegelyee.com -- Siegel Yee &
Brunner, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon, Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller,  666 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012 .
Danny Troxell, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

George Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Jeffrey Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges
Silicon Valley Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee,
Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer
Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for
Prisoner With Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law
Office of Charles Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman &
Balogh LLP, Jules Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon, Rachel
Anne Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice &
Samuel Rand Miller.

George Franco, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Gabriel Reyes, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon, Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Paul Redd, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil Gotshal
Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional Rights,
Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley Office,
Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice,
Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With Children,
Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles Carbone,
Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules Lobel, pro hac
vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol, Center for
Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand Miller.

Luis Esquivel, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon ,Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Ronnie Dewberry, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Y. Huang, Weil
Gotshal Manges, Alexandra Azure Wheeler, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Anne Marie Cappella, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Silicon Valley
Office, Anne Butterfield Weills, Siegel & Yee, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Carmen E. Bremer, Bremer Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carol Strickman, Legal Services for Prisoner With
Children, Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone, Law Office of Charles
Carbone, Evan Charles Greenberg, Coleman & Balogh LLP, Jules
Lobel, pro hac vice, Marilyn S. McMahon, Rachel Anne Meeropol,
Center for Constitutional Rights, pro hac vice & Samuel Rand
Miller.

Mathew Cate, Secretary, CDCR, Defendant, represented by Adriano
Hrvatin, California Department of Justice, Christine Marie
Ciccotti, California Attorney General's Office, Jay Craig Russell,
Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section, Jillian
Renee O'Brien, California State Attorney General's Office, Loran
Michael Simon, California State Department of Justice Office of
the Attorney General & Martine Noel D'Agostino, CA State Attorney
General's Office.

Greg Lewis, Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison, Defendant,
represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California Department of Justice,
Christine Marie Ciccotti, California Attorney General's Office,
Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law
Section, Jillian Renee O'Brien, California State Attorney
General's Office, Loran Michael Simon, California State Department
of Justice Office of the Attorney General & Martine Noel
D'Agostino, CA State Attorney General's Office.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of the State of California,
Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California Department
of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, California Attorney
General's Office, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney
General Correctional Law Section, Jillian Renee O'Brien,
California State Attorney General's Office, Loran Michael Simon,
California State Department of Justice Office of the Attorney
General & Martine Noel D'Agostino, CA State Attorney General's
Office.

Anthony Chaus, Chief, Office of Correctional Safety, CDCR,
Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California Department
of Justice, Jillian Renee O'Brien, California State Attorney
General's Office, Christine Marie Ciccotti, California Attorney
General's Office, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney
General Correctional Law Section, Loran Michael Simon, California
State Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General &
Martine Noel D'Agostino, CA State Attorney General's Office.
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Intervenor,
represented by Phillip A. Murray -- phillip.murray@harcourts.com -
- Phillip Murray.


CELADON TRUCKING: Ratliff's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 1, 2017, in the case
styled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07163 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Manish S. Shah.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied without prejudice as premature.  The
Plaintiff is expected to supplement or renew the motion and then
brief the merits of class certification.

The Court views placeholder class certification motions as
unnecessary to avoid mootness concerns.

The Defendants state that they intend to file a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.  Based on
that representation, the Court stays the application of the MIDP
and stays discovery until the jurisdictional question is resolved.

The Court also set these dates:

    -- Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss
       is due on January 3, 2018;

    -- Defendants' reply is due on January 17, 2018; and

    -- Status hearing is reset to January 31, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M1gB9CLE


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is as styled Shlomo Bleier, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Central Credit Services LLC and Erin Capital Management LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07324 (E.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017).

Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable
management company. It specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Olson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Olson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL CREDIT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01682-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=L7Yws9yn

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


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Sues to Recover Overtime for Bankers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN MILLER, RICHARD GREY II, and STAN ALEMASKIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIZENS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CITIZENS BANK, N.A., and CITIZENS BANK OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-12352 (D. Mass., November 29,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for similarly
situated current and former Licensed Bankers, Licensed
Relationship Bankers, Associate Licensed Relationship Bankers,
Senior Licensed Relationship Bankers, and other employees in
similar job positions with different titles, who have worked for
the Defendants throughout the United States.

Citizens Financial Group, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
maintains its corporate headquarters in Providence, Rhode Island.
Citizens Bank, N.A., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citizens
Financial Group, Inc.  Citizens Bank, N.A. is incorporated in
Delaware and maintains its corporate headquarters in Providence.

Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.  Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania is
incorporated in Pennsylvania and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Defendants are one of the largest diversified financial
services companies in the United States, with branch offices
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  mbrooks@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Sues to Recover Overtime for Bankers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN MILLER, RICHARD GREY II, and STAN ALEMASKIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIZENS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CITIZENS BANK, N.A., and CITIZENS BANK OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-12352 (D. Mass., November 29,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for similarly
situated current and former Licensed Bankers, Licensed
Relationship Bankers, Associate Licensed Relationship Bankers,
Senior Licensed Relationship Bankers, and other employees in
similar job positions with different titles, who have worked for
the Defendants throughout the United States.

Citizens Financial Group, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
maintains its corporate headquarters in Providence, Rhode Island.
Citizens Bank, N.A., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citizens
Financial Group, Inc.  Citizens Bank, N.A. is incorporated in
Delaware and maintains its corporate headquarters in Providence.

Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.  Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania is
incorporated in Pennsylvania and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Defendants are one of the largest diversified financial
services companies in the United States, with branch offices
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  mbrooks@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Payday Loan Subclass Can Recover $7.3MM
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CLARA DAYE, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL LOAN
SERVICE CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a SPEEDY LOAN, Defendant, No. CIV 14-
0759 JB/SCY (D.M.N.), the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum, Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Order and finds that Speedy Loan's
misrepresentations did not damage the Plaintiffs because those
misrepresentations made Speedy Loan's loans appear more expensive
than they actually were.

In the Complaint, Daye asserts four distinct claims for relief.
First, Daye asserts that the payday loans made to Ms. Daye, along
with every other payday loan with like characteristics, violated
the New Mexico Small Loan Act such that those loans are void.
Consequently, according to Daye, all borrowers who entered into
void loans are entitled to the return of all interest and other
charges other than principal and in the alternative, Speedy would
be unjustly enriched by being permitted to retain or collect
amounts in excess of the legally permitted rate of interest and
should be required to disgorge such amounts and be prohibited from
collecting any further unlawful amounts.

Daye asserts a UPA claim for actual damages, trebled, including
all money paid to Speedy in excess of the principal amount loaned,
plus costs and reasonable attorney fees and for injunctive relief
which enjoins Speedy from continuing to collect unlawful amounts
on its illegal payday loans.

The Court certified four subclasses in this case:

   1. The Payday Loan Subclass consists of all members of the
class who entered into a loan with Speedy beginning four years
prior to the filing of this action, and EITHER (a) Speedy
conditioned the loan upon repayment by means of preauthorized
debit authorization OR (b) Speedy accepted preauthorized debit
authorization and either the loan was to be repaid in fewer than
four payments, or the term of the loan was less than 120 days. The
members of the Payday Loan Subclass assert a right to relief under
the UPA and other legal theories for Speedy's illegal payday
loans.

   2. The EFTA Subclass consists of all members of the class who
entered into a loan with Speedy beginning one year prior to the
filing of this case, and whose loan was conditioned upon repayment
by means of preauthorized electronic fund transfer. The members of
the EFTA Subclass assert a right to relief under the EFTA.

   3. The TILA Subclass consists of all members of the class who
entered into a loan with Speedy beginning one year prior to the
filing of this case, in which EITHER (a) the loan paperwork
disclosed a Total of Payments and Finance Charge lower than the
true amounts, OR (b) the form contract did not state the dates
upon which the first payment or any subsequent payments were due,
or whether the payments were due weekly, monthly, or otherwise, or
the number of payments. The members of the TILA Subclass assert a
right to relief under the TILA.

   4. The Deceptive Disclosure Subclass consists of all members of
the class who entered into a loan with Speedy that disclosed a
Total of Payments and Finance Charge lower than the true amounts.
The members of the Deceptive Disclosure Subclass assert a right to
relief under the UPA.

The matter came before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff's Requested
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed May 24, 2017;
("Daye's FOFs"); (ii) the Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law, filed May 24, 2017("Speedy's FOFs"); and
(iii) the Opposed Motion to Strike Witnesses, filed May 13,
2016("Motion to Strike").  The Court held a bench trial on March
15, 2017.  The primary issues are: (i) how much should the
Plaintiffs recover on account of the misrepresentations of
Defendant Community Financial Loan Service Centers, LLC, doing
business as Speedy Loan, regarding the cost of its loans; and (ii)
how much should the Plaintiffs recover on account of Speedy Loan's
violations of New Mexico law regarding payday loans.

The Court determines that Speedy Loan's misrepresentations did not
damage the Plaintiffs, because those misrepresentations made
Speedy Loan's loans appear more expensive than they actually were.
Consequently, the named plaintiff can recover statutory damages
and attorney's fees, but the unnamed plaintiffs can recover
nothing.  The Court also determines that Speedy Loan must return
the interest and fees it collected from the Plaintiffs to the
extent that it collected more than the New Mexico Small Loan Act,
N.M. Stat. Ann. Sections 58-15-1 to -39, permits.

Specifically, the Court ordered that: (i) the Deceptive Disclosure
Subclass cannot recover anything; (ii) Plaintiff Clara Daye, as an
individual, will recover $400.00 in statutory damages as well as
her attorney's fees; (iii) the Payday Loan Subclass will recover
$7,340,471.14 as well as attorney's fees; (iv) the Payday Loan
Subclass is not entitled to injunctive relief; and (v) the Opposed
Motion to Strike Witnesses, filed May 13, 2016 is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaushsmx from Leagle.com.

Clara Daye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles M. Delbaum --
cdelbaum@nclc.org -- National Consumer Law Center, Inc., pro hac
vice.

Clara Daye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard N. Feferman --
consumer@nmconsumerwarriors.com -- Feferman & Warren & Nicholas H.
Mattison -- consumer@nmconsumerwarriors.com -- Feferman & Warren.

Community Financial Service Centers, LLC, doing business as Speedy
Loan, Defendant, represented by Alicia M. LaPado --
Alicia@BusinessLawSW.com -- Business Law Southwest, LLC & Donald
Kochersberger -- Donald@BusinessLawSW.com -- Business Law
Southwest LLC.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: 2nd Bid to Decertify "Strauch" Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued a Ruling denying Defendant's Second Motion to Decertify in
the case captioned JOSEPH STRAUCH and TIMOTHY COLBY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil No. 3:14-CV-956
(JBA) (D. Conn.).

In this overtime exemption misclassification action, Defendant
Computer Sciences Corporation moves to decertify the certified
California and Connecticut classes of Associate Professional and
Professional System Administrators (SAs) on the basis of the
purported legal deficiency of Plaintiffs' trial plan.

The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification certifying Connecticut and California Rule
23 subclasses of Professional and Associate Professional System
Administrators.

The Court of Appeals denied Defendant's Rule 23(f) petition,
finding that an immediate appeal is unwarranted.

During the pendency of the petition for interlocutory review,
Defendant on August 4, 2017, moved to decertify the California
class of Associate Professional and Professional System
Administrators due to the purported inadequacy of Mr. Strauch as a
class representative.  Defendant filed the instant Motion for
Decertification (Second Mot. to Decertify) arguing that the
California and Connecticut classes should both be decertified due
to a legally deficient trial plan put forward by Plaintiffs.
Defendant claims that Plaintiffs' trial plan is inadequate because
it calls for an insufficient and arbitrarily-selected sample size
of testifying witnesses, because it fails to account for variance
among class members, because it fails to account for SAs in the
certified classes who performed exempt job duties, and because the
trial plan risks violating the parties' due process and Seventh
Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs counter (1) that Defendant is attempting to relitigate
the class certification order by making the same arguments but
raising no previously overlooked case law or evidence, (2) that
Plaintiffs intend to make their case primarily based on direct,
common evidence such that they need not present a statistical
sample of class member live witness testimony, and (3) that
Plaintiffs' trial plan poses no due process risks for either
party.

In support of Defendant's Motion to Decertify due to a legally
deficient trial plan, Defendant has not provided the Court with
any controlling precedent that delineates the form that, according
to Defendant, Plaintiffs' trial plan must take. Defendant objects
that Plaintiffs seek improperly to prove their class case on the
basis of testimony that lacks statistical representativeness, but
the cases that Defendant cites for this proposition largely
involve situations where plaintiffs otherwise lacked common
evidence, and where plaintiffs purportedly sought to use non-
statistically representative testimony in lieu of common evidence
to prove hours worked by class members and damages.

Here, the evidence on hours worked and damages has been stipulated
by the parties, based on Defendant's timekeeping records, so the
primary legal issue that will be decided by the jury at trial is
whether class members were properly classified as exempt. In their
trial plan, Plaintiffs rely primarily on common evidence to prove
their case and only secondarily on class member testimony.

Upon consideration of the briefing provided by both parties,
review of the cases cited, oral argument held on November 9, 2017
and November 14, 2017, and the Court's resolution of the majority
of pretrial motions filed up to this point, the Court must deny
Defendant's Second Motion to Decertify. Defendant's view of the
rule for trial plans is misplaced. The cases cited by Defendant do
not hold Plaintiffs' trial plan to the degree of exacting scrutiny
that Defendant urges upon the Court, and Rule 23 itself imposes no
such exacting requirement. The Court has considered Defendant's
other arguments and finds them without merit.  Accordingly,
decertification is not warranted on this basis, and Defendant's
Second Motion to Decertify is denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8y6j3p9 from
Leagle.com.

Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, pro
hac vice.

Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darin Ranahan --
darin@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, pro hac vice, Darnley D. Stewart -- dstewart@outtengolden.com
-- Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Stork, Outten &
Golden, 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, pro hac
vice, Genevieve Casey -- genevieve@feinbergjackson.com --
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Jahan C.
Sagafi, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Jared Goldman, Outten &
Golden LLP, pro hac vice, 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York,
NY 10017. Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Lin Y. Chan, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Michael N. Litrownik, 250 Hudson
Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10013,  Outten & Golden, Michael
J. Scimone, Outten & Golden, pro hac vice, 685 Third Avenue, 25th
Floor, New York, NY 10017, Shira Tevah, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Sudarsana Srinivasan, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Berstein, LLP, 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor, New York,
NY 10013, pro hac vice, Todd F. Jackson --
todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, pro hac vice & Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy &
Segaloff, PC., 59 Elm StNew Haven, CT 06510

Timothy Colby, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Darin Ranahan,
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Darnley D.
Stewart, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Stork,
Outten & Golden, pro hac vice, Genevieve Casey, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten &
Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Jared Goldman, Outten & Golden LLP, pro
hac vice, Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Lin Y. Chan, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
pro hac vice, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Michael N. Litrownik, Outten &
Golden, Michael J. Scimone, Outten & Golden, pro hac vice, Shira
Tevah, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice,
Sudarsana Srinivasan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berstein, LLP, pro
hac vice, Todd F. Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, pro hac vice & Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy &
Segaloff, PC.

Charles Turner, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darin Ranahan, Feinberg,
Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Darnley D. Stewart,
Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Stork, Outten &
Golden, pro hac vice, Genevieve Casey, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman
& Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Jared Goldman, Outten & Golden LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Shira Tevah, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden
LLP, Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC & Todd F.
Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP.

Vernon Carre, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darin Ranahan, Feinberg,
Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Darnley D. Stewart,
Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Stork, Outten &
Golden, pro hac vice, Genevieve Casey, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman
& Wasow LLP, pro hac vice, Jared Goldman, Outten & Golden LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Shira Tevah, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jahan C. Sagafi, Outten & Golden
LLP, Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC & Todd F.
Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP.

Computer Sciences Corp, Defendant, represented by Alison L. Lynch
-- Alison.Lynch@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac
vice, Brett M. Anders -- AndersB@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., pro hac vice, Cary G. Palmer -- PalmerC@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice, Hallie Diethelm Caldarone --
caldaroh@jacksonlewis.com -Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice,
Matthew A. Porter -- PorterM@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., pro hac vice, Michael A. Hood --
Michael.Hood@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice,
Nathan W. Austin -- AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis,
P.C., pro hac vice, Stephen T. Paterniti --
Stephen.Paterniti@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac
vice, Vincent E. Polsinelli -- Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice, Alexa M. Farmer --
Alexa.Farmer@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis -- P.C., Allison P.
Dearington -- Allison.Dearington@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
-- P.C., David R. Golder -- GolderD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis -- P.C., David C. Salazar-Austin -- David.Salazar-
Austin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis -- P.C., Kristi Rich
Winters -- Kristi.Winters@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &
William Joseph Anthony -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C..


COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: Delayed Burial Suit Dismissal Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's judgment
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned CAROLYN ECHEVERRIA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, No. B275637 (Cal.
App.).

Appellants Carolyn Echeverria, the widow of deceased veteran
Frederick Echeverria, and his children, Margot Frotton, Myraya
Echeverria, and Frederick Echeverria, Jr., brought a case arising
out of his delayed burial.

In January 2015, appellants filed a class action complaint against
respondent on behalf of the heirs of veterans whose remains were
found at the morgue.  The complaint purported to state three
causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) fraud, and (3) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.  As to the negligence claim,
appellants alleged that respondent failed to provide a timely
veteran's burial or allow burial by the family, held the remains
"in a manner of disrespect and indignity," allowed them to
decompose beyond recognition, and gave strangers access to the
remains.  The fraud claim was based on allegations that respondent
falsely informed appellants it did not possess the remains when it
knew or should have known that it did.  The claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress was based on the same conduct
alleged as to the other two claims.  Appellants sought damages,
including punitive damages.

The parties focus exclusively on the discovery rule.  The Cal.
App. agrees with respondent that between August and October 2013,
appellants knew or should have known that they had suffered a
wrong, even though they may not have known the specific facts
necessary to establish any particular cause of action.  That was
when they began to suspect decedent's remains had not been buried
and may have been lost or neglected by the morgue.  That also was
when they realized that the individuals to whom decedent's
daughters spoke on the phone had made misleading statements about
the whereabouts of decedent's remains.

However, the discovery rule was not the basis for respondent's
denial of appellants' claims. Rather, the claims were denied as
untimely solely as to events that occurred over six months before
the claim presentation, suggesting that respondent applied the
theory of continuous accrual. Under that theory, any alleged
repeated wrongdoing that occurred between February and May 2014
would still be actionable because it occurred in the six-month
period preceding the presentation of the claims in August 2014.
The continuing violation doctrine may justify treating the alleged
continuing delay in burying decedent and the repeated
misstatements that accompanied the delay as an indivisible course
of conduct actionable in its entirety, notwithstanding that the
conduct occurred partially outside and partially inside the
limitations period.

The Cal. App. declined to affirm the summary judgment on the
ground that appellants' claims were untimely as a whole.

On appeal, the judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant has
the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on
each point made and factual analysis, supported by appropriate
citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, the
argument may be deemed forfeited.

The proper procedure for raising evidentiary objections is either
to file written objections separately from the other papers filed
in relation to the motion for summary judgment or to make
objections orally at the hearing. When the court fails to rule on
properly presented evidentiary objections, they are presumed
overruled and preserved on appeal.  However, if a party fails to
challenge the evidentiary rulings on appeal, any claim of error as
to them is forfeited.  Appellants may not argue they have properly
disputed respondent's evidence when they neither properly raised
evidentiary objections in the trial court, nor challenged the
presumed overruling of any objections on appeal.
Appellants argue there are five triable issues of material fact
that were not addressed in respondent's motion; yet, they present
no legal argument supported by authority as to why these facts are
material to the causes of action alleged in the complaint, whether
they sufficiently establish the elements respondent's motion
challenged, or whether they overcome respondent's defenses. Since
the Cal. App. do not construct appellants' arguments for them, it
considered the arguments forfeited.

On the briefs before the Cal. App., appellants have not met their
burden of showing error on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s November 30, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yah8rsa3 from Leagle.com.

Dermot Givens -- dermot@dgivenslaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Law Offices of David J. Weiss, David J. Weiss -- weissd@djwlaw.com
-- and Sigalit V. Noureal -- noureals@djwlaw.com -- Greines,
Martin, Stein & Richland, Alison M. Turner - amturne3@ncsu.edu --
and Jonathan H. Eisenman -- jeisenman@gmsr.com -- for Defendant
and Respondent.


CROSSTOWN COURIER: Certification of Class Sought in "Arpke" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled STEVEN ARPKE, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CROSSTOWN COURIER,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00185-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), moves for
conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice
and for disclosure of contact information.

The class is defined as:

     Each individual who (a) performed courier or delivery
     services for Crosstown Courier, Inc. ("Crosstown"), any time
     since June 29, 2014, (b) performed courier or delivery
     services pursuant to an assigned or designated route, (c)
     never subcontracted any of his or her delivery work for
     Crosstown or otherwise hired anyone to perform part or all
     of his or her work, (d) worked exclusively for Crosstown
     during his or her tenure, (e) contracted directly with
     Crosstown as an individual, and (f) performed his or her
     regular delivery work for Crosstown for more than forty
     hours per week in at least one work week.

Steven Arpke brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current courier/delivery drivers, who worked for Crosstown
Courier, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other claims.

Mr. Arpke also asks the Court to order the Defendant to provide
the names and current and/or last known mailing addresses and cell
phone numbers, or alternatively e-mail addresses, of all potential
class members, to approve and send his proposed Notice and Consent
to Join form and notice procedure to all potential class members,
to approve the use of RightSignature to facilitate electronic
signature and submission of Consent to Join forms and to approve
costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GaAOrjZ9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
          Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
          BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
          711 Cherry Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (432) 266-2121
          Facsimile: (423) 266-3324
          E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com
                  dmikel@bdplawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mary Taylor Gallaher, Esq.
          Christopher W. Cardwell, Esq.
          GULLETT, SANFORD, ROBINSON & MARTIN, PLLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-4994
          Facsimile: (615) 256-6339
          E-mail: mtgallagher@gsrm.com
                  ccardwell@gsrm.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Lopez" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney's
Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Payments in the case
captioned REYNALDO LOPEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIRLINES,
INC. et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that the Settlement was made and entered into in
good faith and hereby approves the Settlement as fair, adequate
and reasonable to all Class Members. No objections were received.
Any Class Members who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Class are thus bound by this Judgment.

The class includes: All current and former non-exempt employees of
Delta Air Lines, Inc., excluding flight attendants and pilots, who
worked at any time in California from July 1, 2011 through June
30, 2017, excluding persons who were members of the settlement
class in Andrew Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-
01199-YGR, USDC, Northern District of California, and who worked
no shifts for Defendant after November 20, 2014, the effective
release date of claims for the Bell settlement class.

Class Counsel will be paid $1,416,667.00 as their attorneys' fees
and $171,942.48 for reimbursement of costs and expenses from the
Gross Settlement Amount.

Plaintiffs LaDona Narr and Karl Armstrong will each be paid a
Class Representative Service Award in the amount of $10,000.00
from the Gross Settlement Amount.

The Settlement Administrator will be paid $45,000.00 from the
Gross Settlement Amount for the costs and expenses of
administering the Settlement.

A payment in the amount of $100,000 from the Gross Settlement
Amount will be allocated to penalties under The Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7oyhj5u from
Leagle.com.

Reynaldo Lopez, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John
Matern -- Mmatern@maternlaw.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Reynaldo Lopez, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dalia Khalili
-- dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com -, Matern Law Group, PC, Eileen B.
Goldsmith -- egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
Nussbaum Rubin and Demain, Eric P. Brown --
ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, James Michael
Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP &
Matthew W. Gordon -- mgordon@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law
Group, PC.

Eunice Delgadillo, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John
Matern, Matern Law Group PC, Dalia Khalili, Matern Law Group, PC,
Eileen B. Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon Nussbaum Rubin and Demain,
Eric P. Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James Michael Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP & Matthew W. Gordon, Matern Law Group, PC.
Umberto Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John
Matern, Matern Law Group PC, Dalia Khalili, Matern Law Group, PC,
Eileen B. Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon Nussbaum Rubin and Demain,
Eric P. Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James Michael Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP & Matthew W. Gordon, Matern Law Group, PC.
Aveia Tautolo, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John
Matern, Matern Law Group PC, Dalia Khalili, Matern Law Group, PC,
Eileen B. Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon Nussbaum Rubin and Demain,
Eric P. Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James Michael Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP & Matthew W. Gordon, Matern Law Group, PC.
Ladona Narr, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern,
Matern Law Group PC, Eileen B. Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon
Nussbaum Rubin and Demain, Eric P. Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP &
James Michael Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Karl Armstrong, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eileen B.
Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon Nussbaum Rubin and Demain, Eric P.
Brown, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James Michael Finberg, Altshuler
Berzon LLP & Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group PC.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew P. Frederick, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Hien Nguyen, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert J. Hendricks,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Does, Defendant, represented by Andrew P. Frederick, Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Clark" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Clark, Keith A. Feather, Jorge Lopez, Thomas C.
Mehen, and Kathi Lucas, move the Court to certify all claims in
the action entitled DAVID CLARK, ET AL. v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, ET
AL., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), as a class action
under Rule 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class is defined as:

     All participants and beneficiaries of the Duke Faculty and
     Staff Retirement Plan from August 10, 2010 through the date
     of judgment, excluding Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint each of them as
representatives of the class and appoint their attorneys --
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP -- as class counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F9XYIf0H

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Ethan D. Hatch, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  ehatch@uselaws.com

               - and -

          David B. Puryear, Jr., Esq.
          PURYEAR AND LINGLE, PLLC
          5501-E Adams Farm Lane
          Greensboro, NC 27407
          Telephone: (336) 218-0227
          E-mail: puryear@puryearandlingle.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Gibson" Stayed Pending JPML Ruling on Consolidation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay the
case captioned ROBIN GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., Defendant,
Case No. CIV-17-973-D (W.D. Okla.), pending the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)'s ruling on the Defendant's motion
to consolidate more than 200 putative class actions across the
United States.

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant's request for a stay.

The Court finds that it would be in the interest of judicial
economy and efficiency to stay this case pending the JPML's ruling
on the motion to consolidate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yagzbwfy from Leagle.com.

Robin Gibson, individually, Plaintiff, represented by William B.
Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood.

Robin Gibson, individually, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D.
Wells -- jdw@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood.

Robin Gibson, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood & Joshua
D. Wells, Federman & Sherwood.

Equifax Inc, Defendant, represented by Arthur F. Hoge, III --
afhoge@meehoge.com -- Mee Mee Hoge & Epperson PLLP & Timothy F.
Campbell, Mee Mee Hoge & Epperson PLLP, 1900 Northwest Expy #1400
Oklahoma City, OK 73118


FLORIDA HEALTH: Faces "Doyle" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOYLE, Individually, and all others similarly situated v.
FLORIDA HEALTH SOLUTION, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-12231-JMV-MF
(D.N.J., November 29, 2017), accuses the Defendant of negligently
and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his residential
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading his privacy.

Florida Health is a corporation formed under the laws of Florida
with a main address in Miami.  The Defendant is in the business of
selling a health savings and health insurance policy.

Robert Doyle, Esq., is a citizen and resident of Morris County,
New Jersey.  He is an attorney admitted to practice in the State
of New York.  He appears pro se in this case.[BN]


FOUR SEASONS: "DiNino" Suit Questions Charging of Resort Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL DININO, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS INC., a Canadian
corporation; FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian corporation;
and FOUR SEASONS HOTEL LAS VEGAS, a domestic entity, Case No.
2:17-cv-02961 (D. Nev., November 29, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' alleged practice of charging overnight guests with a
mandatory, per-night resort fee, which includes wired and wireless
Internet access, an in-room coffee and tea maker, and all local
phone calls.

Despite the Internet Tax Freedom Act's prohibition on the taxation
of Internet access, the Defendants improperly and illegally
charged their overnight guests the Clark County Combined Transient
Lodging Tax on the entire Resort Fee, including the portion of the
Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, Mr.
DiNino contends.

Four Seasons Hotels Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its
principal place of business in Toronto, Canada.  Four Seasons
Hotels Inc., together with its subsidiaries Four Seasons Hotels
Limited and Four Seasons Hotel Las Vegas, operate the Four Seasons
resort.  Four Seasons is a "Resort hotel" as defined by the Clark
County Code.

Four Seasons Hotels Limited is a Canadian corporation with its
principal place of business in Toronto, Canada.  Four Seasons
Hotel Las Vegas is a domestic unit of Four Seasons Hotels Inc. and
Four Seasons Hotels, Limited, with its principal place of business
in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley Schrager, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1022 Carolina Blvd., Suite 300
          Charleston, SC 29451
          Telephone: (855) 467-0451
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: jripley@bm.net


GEO GROUP: Faces "Novoa" Suit in Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The GEO Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Raul Novoa, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The GEO Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-09060 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ICHIRO ASIAN FUSION: Faces "Wang" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ichiro Asian Fusion
Inc. doing business as: Ichiro Modern Japanese & Bar. The case is
styled Chen Wang, Zhilin Wang and Shaoyu Wang, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Ichiro Asian Fusion Inc. doing business as: Ichiro Modern Japanese
& Bar, Danny Doe, Ben Doe and Jian Ping Chen, Defendants, Case No.
7:17-cv-09869 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017).

Ichiro Asian Fusion, Inc. is in the Family Restaurants
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


INSYS THERAPEUTIC: Del. Ch. Stays Derivative Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Opinion granting
Defendants' Motion to Stay the case captioned In re Insys
Therapeutics Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 12696-
VCMR (Del. Ch.) because named individual defendants have been
indicted in a federal criminal action related to the same facts as
this derivative suit.

Nominal Defendant Insys Therapeutics, Inc., produces SUBSYS, an
instant-release sublingual fentanyl spray.  The Federal Food and
Drug Administration approved SUBSYS in January 2012 for the
management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients 18 years of age
or older who are already receiving and who are tolerant to around-
the-clock opioid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer
pain.

A subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services Office
of Inspector General (HHS) in connection with the government's
investigation of the sales and marketing of SUBSYS.  Six senior
Insys executives were indicted in federal court on charges of
racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud conspiracy, wire fraud
conspiracy, and conspiracy to violate the federal anti-kickback
statute.  On February 2, 2016, Insys stockholders filed a federal
securities class action lawsuit against Defendants Insys, John N.
Kapoor, and Michael L. Babich, and non-party in the instant case
Darryl Baker, alleging that Insys "made misrepresentations
concerning its business practices and compliance with law."

Plaintiffs have brought derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims
against Insys's board of directors, against certain former Insys
officers, and against the controlling stockholder of Insys.
Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants, Babich, and
Kapoor knowingly oversaw the implementation of an illegal sales
and marketing program, and thereby caused Insys to violate
positive law; consciously and repeatedly failed to actively
monitor or oversee the compliance program; and consciously
disregarded their duty to investigate red flags and to remedy any
misconduct uncovered.

Plaintiffs further allege that Kapoor violated his fiduciary
duties as controlling stockholder by causing Insys to implement
and execute an illegal sales and marketing plan.

Defendants move to dismiss this action or, in the alternative, to
stay this action pending the resolution of the federal securities
action and criminal investigation.

Ultimately, balancing the concerns of Plaintiffs and Defendants
dictates the same outcome as Brenner, 2012 WL 252286, where the
court held that on balance, neither of the burdens outweighs the
practical considerations in favor of granting a stay.

In this case, both overarching considerations favor granting a
stay in light of the ongoing criminal investigation.  First,
Babich and five other former executives of Insys were indicted and
are facing trial in 2018; Kapoor was indicted in October 2017; and
the investigation is still ongoing.  Second, Plaintiffs admit in
the Complaint that the Federal Indictment significantly tracks the
particularized allegations.  The five secondary factors are
largely addressed by the above discussion of Brenner and do not
outweigh the two overarching considerations in this case.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's November 30, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9bbbefx from Leagle.com.


JACO OIL CO: Faces "Hameister" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaco Oil Company.
The case is styled Jillian Hameister, an individually, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jaco Oil
Company, Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-102876 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 15, 2017).

Jaco Oil Company, established since 1967, has grown into a diverse
operation over the years. The Company is privately owned and
focuses on the management of Brooke Utilities, Fastrip Financial,
Fastrip Food Stores, Instant Storage, and Wholesale Fuels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
   Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP
   801 South Figueroa St.
   15th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA  90017
   Tel: (213) 624-6900
   Fax: (213) 624-6999
   Email: ays@manningllp.com


JBS CARRIERS: "Skau" Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Remand the case captioned KURT SKAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JBS CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. C17-1499-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
to the King County Superior Court.

Plaintiff Kurt Skau worked as a truck driver for Defendant JBS
Carriers, Inc.  Skau filed a class action lawsuit against JBS in
King County Superior Court alleging that JBS violated several
Washington State pay and hour regulations. JBS removed the lawsuit
to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332. Skau asks the Court to remand the case to state
court because JBS has not proved that the amount in controversy is
greater than $75,000.

In its notice of removal, JBS calculates Skau's prospective
damages as $53,648.66. Skau does not dispute this calculation. By
declaration, Skau's attorneys assert that they had incurred
$14,085 in fees at the time JBS removed the case from state court.
While the total of these figures falls $7,266.34 short of the
$75,000 amount in controversy threshold, JBS argues that Skau will
incur litigation costs far in excess of that shortfall over the
life of the lawsuit.

In addition, JBS cites to past class action cases in which Skau's
attorneys have been awarded attorney fees that alone eclipsed
$75,000.  The Court does not find that an estimate of future
attorney fees can be used to satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement. Therefore, JBS has failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that at the time of removal the amount in
controversy was greater than $75,000. For that reason, Skau's
motion to remand is granted.

Skau additionally asks the Court to award him attorney fees and
costs because "JBS lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
removing this case to federal court."  Because courts throughout
our Circuit have resolved this issue differently, the Court
concludes that JBS had an objectively reasonable basis to remove
the case. Skau's motion for attorney fees and costs is denied.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwvyx3p from
Leagle.com.

Kurt Skau, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk --
greg@rekhiwolk.com -- REKHI & WOLK, P.S..

Kurt Skau, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Avenue North, Suite 201. Seattle, WA 98109,
Toby James Marshall -- tmarhsall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Maria Hoisington-Bingham --
Mhosington@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

JBS Carriers, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Jonathon Watson -- jwatson@shermanhoward.com -- SHERMAN &
HOWARD LLC, pro hac vice, Michael J. Killeen --
mikekilleen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Nathaniel Joseph
Wonderly -- joewonderly@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "Lakkard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Lakkard moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOHN LAKKARD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL
SYSTEMS LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01685-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.

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 Plaintiff 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=dJs0X2Vo

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


JEUNESSE LLC: Seeks Denial of Aboltin's Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeunesse, LLC, Wendy R. Lewis, Ogale "Randy" Ray and Scott A.
Lewis, some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned James J.
Aboltin and Pamela J. Knight, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Jeunesse, LLC aka Jeunesse Global,
Inc., a Florida limited liability company, MLM Mafia, Inc. a
Nevada corporation, Online Communications, LLC a Wyoming limited
liability company, Wendy R. Lewis, an individual, Ogale "Randy"
Ray, an individual, Scott A. Lewis, an individual, Kim Hui, an
individual, Jason Caramanis, an individual, Alex Morton, an
individual, Kevin Giguere, an individual, John and Jane Does 1-
100, individual natural persons, and ABC Corporations, Companies,
and/or Partnerships 1-20, Case No. 6:17-cv-01624-PGB-KRS (M.D.
Fla.), ask the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for failure to satisfy the requirements of Rules
23(a)(3), 23(a)(4) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

"Before Plaintiffs can even begin to litigate the non-existent
merits of their claims, however, they would have to sort out the
membership of their putative class, and provide meaningful notice
to these class members advising them of their rights," the Moving
Defendants contend.  "It is plain from the face of their
Complaint, however, that they cannot determine who is and is not
in his class without impermissible individual inquiries."

That problem is inherent in the claims they propose to pursue --
where "winners" cannot maintain the claims they have alleged, and
may even have liability to the "losers" -- so the uncertifiable
nature of their class definition cannot be cured, the Defendants
argue.  Even were Plaintiffs typical and adequate class
representatives, therefore, they still could not satisfy Rule
23(b)(3) because individual issues cannot help but predominate
over any issues common to the proposed class, the Defendants add.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aufA0MG8

Defendants Jeunesse, LLC, Wendy Lewis, Scott Lewis, and Ogale Ray
are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
          E-mail: jjacobson@kelleydrye.com
                  ggraham@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Jennings L. Hurt III, Esq.
          Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus, Esq.
          Michael C. Woodard, Esq.
          RISSMAN BARRET HURT DONAHUE MCCLAIN & MANGAN P.A.
          201 E. Pine Street, 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 4940
          Orlando, FL 32802-4940
          Telephone: (407) 839-0120
          Facsimile: (407) 841-9726
          E-mail: bucky.hurt@rissman.com
                  isaaac.ruiz-carus@rissman.com
                  michael.woodard@rissman.com


JOHNSON UTILITIES: Faces "Castillo" Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Utilities
LLC. The case is styled Tisha Castillo, Karen Christian and Steve
Pratt, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. George Harry Johnson, a married man, Unknown
Johnson, Named as Jane Doe Johnson a married woman, Johnson
Utilities LLC, Johnson International Incorporated, Gary Leonard
Pierce, a married man, Sherry Ann Pierce, a married woman, James
Franklin Norton, a married man and Unknown Norton, Named as Jane
Doe Norton, a married woman, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04688-
DLR (D. Ariz, December 18, 2017).

Johnson Utilities LLC provides quality water and wastewater
services to communities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Javier Torres, Esq.
   Stinson Leonard Street LLP
   1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 2100
   Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
   Tel: (602) 212-8504
   Fax: (602) 586-5270
   Email: javier.torres@stinson.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Fried"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned GINNIE
FRIED, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-2512 (D.N..J).

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Homeowner's
Protection Act (HPA) as well as supplemental state law claims.
Plaintiff brought her case as a putative class action.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), a motion for summary judgment
will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.

Defendants argue, without opposition, that JPMC should be
dismissed from the case because the Complaint does not allege any
wrongdoing by JPMC.

The Court agrees.

The issue presented is whether Defendants are subject to agency
enforcement under the terms of the statute, even though no agency
has brought an enforcement action, therefore limiting Plaintiff's
recovery here to a statutory cap.

According to Defendants, 12 U.S.C. Section 4907(a)(2)(B)(i)
governs this case because Plaintiff's claim involves a putative
class action against a defendant subject to 4909. As a result,
Defendants assert that actual damages are not available and that
total recovery in this action, inclusive of costs and fees, shall
not exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of
the liable party.

Defendants define subject to as under the authority of The New
Oxford American Dictionary 1685 (2d ed. 2005). Pursuant to this
definition, Defendants argue Chase is under the authority of the
agencies enumerated in Section 4909, as it is undisputed that
Chase falls under the jurisdiction of the CFPB. Defendants provide
examples from the U.S. Code, court decisions, and agency
interpretation to support their definition of subject to.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' interpretation of subject to
would create disharmony among the provisions of the statute and,
more specifically, render the catch-all provision of Section
4909(a)(4) meaningless. The catch-all provision authorizes the
CFPB to bring enforcement proceedings against "any person subject
to this chapter.

According to Defendants' interpretation, any liable party subject
to the HPA is also subject to CFPB enforcement. Thus, Defendants'
interpretation would make Section 4907(a)(1), which authorizes
actual damages against a liable party that is not subject to
Section 4909, surplusage and meaningless because every liable
party under the HPA is subject to Section 4909 and no class could
ever recover actual damages. Plaintiff contends, and the Court
agrees, that the better reading of Section 4907(a)(1) is that the
defendant is not liable for actual damages in a class action if it
has been subject to actual enforcement proceedings under Section
4909 and had to repay improperly collected premiums, not that it
might potentially one day be subject to enforcement proceedings.

Adopting Defendants' position would make Section 4907(a)(1)'s
authorization of actual damages surplusage and meaningless,
thereby creating disharmony among the HPA's various provisions.
Plaintiff's interpretation, on the other hand, is consistent with
the overall statutory scheme.

Defendants argue Plaintiffs may not recover more than $500,000
because the HPA's text conclusively demonstrates, and very plainly
states, that the 'total recovery' in 'any class action or series
of class actions' is limited by the cap of Section
4907(a)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff responds that the plain language
states that such a limitation only pertains to the statutory
damages set forth in this subchapter.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff.

As Plaintiff argues, the cap in Section 4907(a)(2)(B)(i) and
(a)(2)(B)(ii) explicitly relates to recovery under this
subparagraph. Subparagraph (a)(2), unlike (a)(1) (actual damages),
(a)(3) (costs), and (a)(4) (fees), applies to such statutory
damages as the court may allow. 12 U.S.C. Section 4907(a)(2).
Consequently, only statutory damages under subparagraph (a)(2) are
subject to the limit contained therein. Section 4907(a)(3) and
(a)(4) allow for the recovery of costs and fees, without reference
to either enforcement under Section 4909 or any limit contained in
(a)(2).

A full-text copy of the Court's November 30, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yddt7l2z from Leagle.com.

GINNINE FRIED, Plaintiff, represented by ANTONIO VOZZOLO --
Antonio.Vozzolo@MagnetiMarelli.com -- VOZZOLO LLC.

GINNINE FRIED, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C..

Mortgage Bankers Association, Amicus, represented by JOHN P.
LAVELLE, JR. -- john.lavelle@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP.

American Bankers Association, Amicus, represented by JOHN P.
LAVELLE, JR., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

Consumer Bankers Association, Amicus, represented by JOHN P.
LAVELLE, JR., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

Consumer Mortgage Coalition, Amicus, represented by JOHN P.
LAVELLE, JR., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

Housing Policy Council, Amicus, represented by JOHN P. LAVELLE,
JR., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

Independent Community Bankers of America, Amicus, represented by
JOHN P. LAVELLE, JR., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.


LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Affirms Remand of Aug. 2016 Flooding Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court judgment granting Appellee's
Motion to Remand the case captioned CITY OF WALKER; CITY OF DENHAM
SPRINGS; WILLIAMSON EYE CENTER (APMC); TIMOTHY JOHN KINCHEN;
SHANNON FARRIS KINCHEN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF
LOUISIANA, through the Department of Transportation and
Development, Defendant-Appellee, v. GILCHRIST CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BOH BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C.;
JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.; MODJESKI & MASTERS,
INCORPORATED; GULF ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED;
BARRIERE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C.; G.E.C., INCORPORATED;
GOTECH, INCORPORATED; GEO ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED; SJB GROUP,
L.L.C.; EUSTIS ENGINEERING, L.L.C., formerly known as Eustis
Engineering Services, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants, No. 17-30768
(5th Cir.)

Appellants assert three bases for removal: (1) Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction; (2) federal officer
jurisdiction; and (3) federal question jurisdiction.

The class action lawsuit alleges that a concrete barrier installed
as part of a highway widening project exacerbated flooding caused
by an August 2016 rainstorm.  Appellant James Construction Group,
LLC, removed the class action lawsuit from state court to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
The district court subsequently granted appellees' remand motion,
and appellants appeal that order.

The district court held that this case falls under the Class
Action Fairness Act's local controversy exception.

CAFA provides the federal district courts with original
jurisdiction to hear a class action if the class has more than 100
members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.

Appellants concede that every requirement except the final one is
met here.  They point to Levi Robertson, et al. v. The State of
Louisiana and the Department of Transportation and Development,
No. 16-2272 (21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa,
filed Aug 22, 2016), as a similar class action filed in the three
years preceding this suit.  Appellees do not dispute that
Robertson is a class action filed within the relevant time period,
or that LA DOTD is a defendant both here and in Robertson.

The Third Circuit held that Robertson is not the sort of similar
class action that would support federal jurisdiction over this
otherwise local controversy.  The district court therefore
correctly declined to exercise CAFA jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirms the district court's remand
order as to federal officer jurisdiction because appellants have
failed to meet their burden to show that James Construction was
acting under a federal officer when it designed and built the
Geaux Wider project.

The Third Circuit affirms the district court's remand as to CAFA
and federal officer jurisdiction, and dismisses the suit for lack
of jurisdiction the appeal as to the district court's federal
question determination.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's November 30, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya42ckym from Leagle.com.

David Joseph Bourgeois, for Defendant-Appellant, Three Lakeway
Center3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 2900Metairie, LA 70002

Joseph M. Bruno, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 855 Baronne Street
New Orleans, LA 70113

William Glenn Burns, for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles Bruce Colvin, for Defendant-Appellant, 201 Saint Charles
Ave Ste 3300, New Orleans, LA 70170-3400

Murphy J. Foster, III -- murphy.foster@bswllp.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Michael Robert Carson Riess -- mriess@kingsmillriess.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Mitchell A. Toups, PO Box 350, Beaumont, TX 77704-0350, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Albert Dale Clary -- adc@longlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.
Andrew D. Weinstock -- andreww@duplass.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

James M. Garner, for Defendant-Appellee, 909 Poydras Street, Suite
2800, New Orleans, LA 70112


LOVED ONES: Non-Exempt Employees Class Certified in "Mayhew" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit styled PAMELA MAYHEW, BETSY FARNSWORTH, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LOVED ONES
IN HOME CARE, LLC, and DONNA SKEEN, Case No. 2:17-cv-03844 (S.D.W.
Va.), conditionally certifying a class consisting of:

     all non-exempt employees who have worked for one of the
     defendants at any time during the three years preceding
     July 28, 2017.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and seek recovery for the three years that
precede the filing of the original complaint on July 28, 2017.

Among its other affirmative defenses, Loved Ones contends it was
exempt from the Act's overtime pay requirements, based on 29
U.S.C. Section 213(a)(15), the scope of which arguably encompassed
home health care workers, such as the plaintiffs, according to the
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qGxZ5TQh


MARTINEZ CLEANING: Faces "Llontoy" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martinez Cleaning
Co. Inc. The case is styled as Alipia Llontoy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Martinez
Cleaning Co. Inc. Jointly and Severally, Jorge Martinez, Jointly
and Severally and Elva Martinez, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07366 (E.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017).

MCC is a family owned and operated janitorial and maintenance
provider in the New York City and Tri-State area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


MCGRATH COLOSIMO: Khalil Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khalil Khalil asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned KHALIL KHALIL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. McGRATH COLOSIMO, LTD. d/b/a
McGRATH LEXUS, Case No. 1:17-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, be certified
as a class action on behalf of this class:

     All persons in the United States who, from August 31, 2014
     to the present, received text messages on their cell phone
     from McGrath Lexus or some person or entity acting on behalf
     McGrath Lexus and did not provide McGrath Lexus their prior
     express written consent to receive such text messages.

Mr. Khalil also asks the Court to appoint his counsel as counsel
for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zvEHvV5N

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Gus Harrison Inmate's Pro Se Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the Complaint in the case captioned DALE D. MOBLEY,
Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No. 17-13086
(E.D. Mich.).

The plaintiff, Dale D. Mobley, recently filed a pro se complaint
purporting to be a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  When the plaintiff filed his complaint, he was a state
prisoner at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian,
Michigan, and he alleged that was being unlawfully confined in
prison.  Since then, he has been released on parole.  However, the
only defendant named in the complaint is the State of Michigan,
which is immune from suit on all of the claims pleaded.  The Court
therefore will dismiss the complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfx5e7z from Leagle.com.

Dale D. Mobley, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Thomas"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, issued a Memorandum Decision
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
in the cases filed by three consumer debtors against Midland
Funding, LLC, and Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Karen Thomas filed adversary proceeding 17-05010.  Gary Brooks Jr.
and Mary Gillespie-Brooks filed adversary proceeding 17-05009.
The two complaints have been consolidated for administrative
convenience.  The consumer debtors seek a class action (with other
similarly situated debtors in this district), a declaratory
judgment, damages, and injunctive relief. Midland seeks to dismiss
the complaints as failing to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs initially request that the Court
certify a class for this action.  Next, the plaintiffs assert two
counts.  In Count I, the plaintiffs allege Midland violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), specifically
sections 1692e and 1692f. In Count II, the plaintiffs allege
Midland violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001.

Midland moves to dismiss the complaints in their entirety.

Count I: Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA)

The plaintiffs have pleaded facts describing a business practice
of reporting principal amounts of credit card debt in bankruptcy
cases greater than the plaintiffs admit, then withholding from the
plaintiffs information to explain how the amounts in the claim
were derived, in spite of rules requiring disclosure of this
information. In this way, the plaintiffs have pleaded a potential
injury: the plaintiffs have pleaded how they have been deprived
information to evaluate whether to object to the claim which seeks
to collect amounts greater than the plaintiffs admit they owe as
of the date they filed bankruptcy.

The complaint alleges Midland had a practice of filing claims to
seek recovery from a bankruptcy estate, knew that its practice of
reporting amounts on its claims was inconsistent with applicable
rules for filing these proofs of claim in a bankruptcy case, and
yet did it anyway. The plaintiffs allege this conduct is an unfair
means to collect a debt, or an unconscionable means to collect a
debt. Midland argues that a Rule 3001 violation does not violate
the FDCPA. Midland relies upon cases which address whether the
FDCPA is breached by different types of Rule 3001 violations
rather than the particular allegations described in this
complaint. The plaintiffs have alleged conduct which, if true,
describes a debt collection model in bankruptcy cases which could
be unfair as that term is used under the FDCPA because it appears
to obtain an advantage vis-a-vis other creditors or to potentially
collect more than the creditor would have otherwise had it
complied with Rule 3001.

This Court denies the motion to dismiss Count I.

Count II: Violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001

In Count II, plaintiffs allege that Midland violated Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that
Midland violated Rule 3001(a) by failing to file a proof of claim
that conformed substantially to the Official Form because it
failed to accurately disclose that interest, fees, expenses, or
charges were included in the claim amount.

For this Court to issue a permanent injunction, plaintiffs must
satisfy a four-factor test.  A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1)
that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity
is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by a permanent injunction.

The facts as alleged do not show how an injunction is warranted.

Because the complaint does not provide sufficient details of the
grounds for an injunction, Midland has not been provided
appropriate notice of the grounds justifying an injunction in
order to adequately respond. Likewise, Midland has not been
provided sufficient notice of the extent of the attorney's fees
caused by the failure to comply with Rule 3001 or litigation
costs. For these reasons, the Court determines Count II as
currently drafted is insufficient because it fails to detail the
relief requested and plead sufficient facts that would authorize
the injunctive relief requested.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss Count II.

The case is In re: KAREN M. THOMAS, Chapter 13, Debtor. In re:
GARY L. BROOKS, JR. and MARY M. GILLESPIE-BROOKS, Chapter 13,
Debtors. KAREN M. THOMAS, GARY L. BROOKS, JR., and MARY M.
GILLESPIE-BROOKS, Plaintiffs, MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants. Case Nos. 16-50612, 16-50396,
Adv. P. No. 17-05010 (Bankr. W.D. Va.).

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's November 30, 2017
Memorandum Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jyk869
from Leagle.com.

Karen M Thoma, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy E. Cupp, Shelley
Cupp Schulte, PC, 2020 Monument Avenue Richmond VA 23220, Thomas
D. Domonoske, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., 1800 Diagonal
Rd, Ste 600, Alexandria, Va 22314, Beth C. Driver --
bdriver@hooverpenrod.com -- Hoover Penrod PLC, Hannah White Hutman
-- hhutman@hooverpenrod.com -- Hoover Penrod, PLC & Grant D.
Penrod -- GPenrod@hooverpenrod.com -- Hoover Penrod, PLC.

Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by James K. Donaldson
-- jdonaldson@spottsfain.com -- Spotts Fain PC.


MIDWAY ISLAND: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified in "Dean" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, to Approve Notice and Consent,
for Authorization to Conduct Discovery on the Identity of All
Putative Class Members and Authorization to Send Notice to
Potential Class Members filed in the lawsuit titled URIKA DEAN, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. MICHAEL
BILLINGS (d/b/a) MIDWAY ISLAND, and MIDWAY ISLAND, LLC, Case No.
5:16-cv-01459-M (W.D. Okla.).

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court conditionally
certifies this class:

     Current and former exotic dancers who worked for defendants
     and were subject to defendants' classification of dancers as
     independent contractors at any time from 2013 through the
     present.

Judge Miles-LaGrange also directs the Defendants to produce to the
Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known address, and telephone
numbers of each entertainer retained by Defendants Michael
Billings and/or Midway Island, LLC as an independent contractor
from March 1, 2013, through the present, within 14 days of the
date of this Order.

The Court authorizes the Plaintiff to provide potential class
members with Notice and Consent forms via first class mail and
Internet Web site posting.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OdqEfJV9


MONARCH RECOVERY: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Accord in "Hartman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01364-CB (W.D. Pa.), jointly
moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying class and
granting preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement
on behalf of this class:

     All Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection letters
     from Defendant in an attempt to collect an obligation owed
     to Synchrony Bank, similar to the Collection Letter annexed
     to the complaint as Exhibit A, where Monarch's File Number
     was visible through the lower glassine window of the
     enclosing envelope, during the time period spanning
     October 20, 2014 to the present.

Ms. Hartman filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges that MRM violated the
FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications where
Monarch's File Number was visible through the lower glassine
window of the enclosing envelope.

A copy of the Notice of Class Action Settlement is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XgR9Jwt4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN, P.C.
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2765
          Facsimile: (215) 575-0856
          E-mail: Amschwartz@mdwcg.com


NATIONAL RESEARCH: Kessler, Labaton to Lead Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Nebraska issued
an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for Consolidation of
Related Actions and Appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead
Counsel in the cases captioned ANTHONY GENNARO, JR., on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
RESEARCH CORPORATION, MICHAEL D. HAYS, JOANN M. MARTIN, BARBARA J.
MOWRY, JOHN N. NUNNELLY, and DONALD M. BERWICK, Defendants. JAMES
D. GERSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
shareholders of NATIONAL RESEARCH CORPORATION, and derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendant NATIONAL RESEARCH CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL D. HAYS, MICHAEL AND KAREN HAYS
GRANDCHILDREN'S TRUST, DONALD M. BERWICK, JOANN M. MARTIN, BARBARA
J. MOWRY, JOHN N. NUNNELLY, Defendants, and NATIONAL RESEARCH
CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, Nos. 4:17CV441, 4:17CV3152 (D.
Neb.).

The parties' Stipulation for Consolidation provides the following
recitals, inter alia:

A Verified Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiff
Anthony Gennaro, Jr., a shareholder of National Research
Corporation (NRC), by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Gennaro Action).

A Verified Shareholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint was
filed as a related case to the Gennaro Action on behalf of James
D. Gerson, a shareholder of NRC, by the law firm of Labaton
Sucharow LLP (Gerson Action).

The Plaintiffs represent that all Defendants in the Gennaro Action
and the Gerson Action have agreed to consolidation and that the
Joint Motion is unopposed.

Upon review of the pleadings and parties' Stipulation for
Consolidation, the Court concludes the above-captioned cases
involve common questions of law and fact, and should be
consolidated. The Court will adopt the parties' Stipulation for
Consolidation and Proposed Order.

The Court orders that the Joint Motion for Consolidation of
Related Actions and Appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead
Counsel, Filing No. 22 in Case No. 4:17CV441; Filing No. 22 in
Case No. 4:17CV3152, is granted. The parties' Stipulation for
Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment of Co-Lead
Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel (Filing No. 23 in Case No.
4:17CV441; Filing No. 23 in Case No. 4:17CV3152) is adopted.

The law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Labaton
Sucharow LLP will serve as co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action.

Anthony Gennaro, Jr. and James D. Gerson will serve as co-lead
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mpgorc from
Leagle.com.

Anthony Gennaro, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blake E. Johnson --
blake@bruninglawgroup.com -- BRUNING LAW GROUP.

Anthony Gennaro, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig J. Springer --
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS, SPRINGER LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice, David D. Cookson -- david@bruninglawgroup.com -- BRUNING
LAW GROUP, Eric L. Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- KESSLER, TOPAZ LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Grant D. Goodhart -- ggoodhart@ktmc.com --
KESSLER, TOPAZ LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Michael C. Wagner --
mwagner@ktmc.com -- KESSLER, TOPAZ LAW FIRM, pro hac vice.


ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Suit in 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oracle America, Inc.
The case is styled Marcella Johnson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Oracle America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-17489 (9th Cir., December 18, 2017).

Oracle America, Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, and services
network computing infrastructure solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Xinying Valerian, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: 415-795-2020

The Defendant is represented by:

   Brittany Ann Sachs, Esq.
   Paul Hastings LLP
   101 California Street
   48th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: 415-856-7000; 415-856-7000


ORACLE CORP: Shareholders' Suit Over Opower Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PETER
VAN DER FLUIT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL YATES, ALEX LASKEY, JON SAKODA,
MARK McLAUGHLIN, DIPCHAND NISHAR, GENE RIECHERS, MARCUS RYU, OC
ACQUISITION LLC, OLYMPUS II ACQUISITION CORPORATION and ORACLE
CORPORATION, Defendants, C.A. No. 12553-VCMR (Del. Ch.).

This case arises from Oracle's acquisition of Opower, Inc. through
a tender offer and subsequent merger.  Plaintiff argues that the
transaction results from an unfair deal orchestrated by a
controlling stockholder.  Defendants respond that Opower did not
have a controlling stockholder and the business judgment rule
applies to my judicial review of the acquisition because fully
informed, uncoerced stockholders tendered a majority of their
shares in the transaction.  Defendants also contend that Plaintiff
fails to state non-exculpated claims for breach of fiduciary duty
or aiding and abetting.

Under Delaware law, a stockholder is a controller "where the
stockholder (1) owns more than 50% of the voting power of a
corporation or (2) owns less than 50% of the voting power of the
corporation but 'exercises control over the business affairs of
the corporation.'"

The Court held that Plaintiff fails to plead that either MHS
Capital ("MHS") or New Enterprise Associates ("NEA") is a member
of an alleged control group.  The Investor Rights Agreement to
which MHS and NEA are signatories contains no voting, decision-
making, or other agreements that bear on the transaction
challenged in the instant case.  In addition to the Investor
Rights Agreement, NEA representative Sakoda served on the Opower
board, and NEA entered into the Tender and Support Agreements.
But Plaintiff does not explain why Sakoda's presence on the board
binds NEA together with Yates, Laskey, and MHS as members of an
alleged control group. Further, the Tender and Support Agreements
include a list of separate stockholders, each of whom has decided
to sell shares to Oracle.

Plaintiff pleads no facts to suggest and offers no explanation for
why these agreements evidence the presence of a control group
rather than a concurrence of self-interest among certain
stockholders.  Moreover, Plaintiff offers no explanation for why
NEA and MHS are members of an alleged control group while the
numerous other signatories to these agreements are not.  NEA and
MHS simply appear to be early venture capital investors selected
by Plaintiff as an attempt to increase the stock ownership of the
purported group. Plaintiff fails to plead that NEA or MHS are part
of a control group.

Yates and Laskey founded the company and held almost 30% of
outstanding Opower stock "at the time of the transaction."  Other
than cursory statements regarding their control, Plaintiff alleges
no facts showing Yates and Laskey acting together or controlling
the company with a minority stake, as opposed to simply working
with a concurrence of self-interest.  Plaintiff does not offer any
facts about the personal relationship between Yates and Laskey.
Plaintiff does not detail the working relationship between Yates
and Laskey.  Plaintiff does not argue that Yates and Laskey voted
together or operated Opower in unison.  Plaintiff does not provide
instances where Yates and Laskey dominated the board or the
operations of the Company.   In short, the Complaint does not
plead facts sufficient to show meaningful connections between
Yates and Laskey or managerial control of Opower.

Thus, Plaintiff fails to plead the existence of a controller at
Opower.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff does not plead any facts to
support his conclusory assertion that these early conversations
reflected some deep-seated favoritism towards Oracle, that the
business partnership actually was just the first stage towards an
inevitable acquisition, or that a vaguely-worded acknowledgement
of knowing someone in the same business field meant an unspoken
promise to sell one's company to Oracle. In short, Plaintiff fails
to plead facts sufficient to infer that Director Defendants
favored a sale to Oracle.

Yates, Laskey, NEA, and MHS held substantial portions of Opower's
outstanding stock at the time of the sale to Oracle, providing
substantial incentive to secure the maximum price possible in the
Oracle transaction. Yates and Laskey owned roughly fourteen
million shares of Opower stock between them at the time of the
transaction; every dollar more of deal consideration meant an
additional $14 million for the pair.  Plaintiff fails to plead any
facts to suggest that Director Defendants were anything but fully
incentivized to maximize the sale price of Opower, other than the
fact that some invested pre-IPO.  Moreover, Plaintiff's reasoning
would imply that simply pointing out that a defendant had invested
pre-IPO or indeed, at any price lower than some group of
stockholders is sufficient to challenge that defendant's
motivations in a sale process.  The Court says it does not
understand this to be the law of Delaware.  These allegations fail
to plead that Director Defendants accepted an otherwise lower bid
for an improper purpose, such as having achieved enough profit on
pre-IPO investments.

The Complaint also alleged that the company's banker told the
Board that time is not a friend to this deal with continued out
performance and a looming fourth quarter earnings call, and that,
in response, the Board sped up the sales process. No such non-
conclusory allegations are present in the instant case, the Court
pointed out.  Instead, the proxy describes a seventeen-day market
check process involving fourteen technology and industrial
utilities companies. Four companies progressed to the
confidentiality agreement stage, and three companies met with
management.  At the end of the process, the other potential
bidders each made clear that a competing bid would not be
forthcoming, either at all or within a reasonable time frame.
Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to reasonably infer that
this process demonstrates a breach of the duty of loyalty.

Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead that conflicts of interest
tainted a majority of the Opower board as part of the merger
agreement, the Company created a "Company Compensatory Awards"
plan, which addressed the treatment of compensation to Opower
officers, including the conversion of certain unvested Opower
options into unvested Oracle options at a set conversion ratio.
Plaintiff does not contend that the board was unaware of Yates and
Laskey's options arrangements. Plaintiff fails to show that
interested directors comprised a majority of the board, dominated
the other directors, or failed to inform the other directors of
their alleged conflicts. Thus, Plaintiff fails to plead non-
exculpable claims against Opower directors, and the Court
dismissed the count against Director Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's November 30, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yat5uchx
from Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- and David M. Sborz --
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware; Stuart A. Davidson -- Sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Christopher Martins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Boca Raton,
Florida; David T. Wissbroecker -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Edward Gergosian -- ed@gergosian.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, San Diego, California; Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Thomas A. Beck, beck@rlf.com Blake Rohrbacher --
rohrbacher@rlf.com -- and Susan M. Hannigan -- hannigan@rlf.com --
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys
for Defendants.


PENNSYLVANIA: Murphy Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert J. Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Robert Murphy v. Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-01239, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the purported
class action lawsuit was assigned to Hon. Edward G. Smith.  The
nature of suit is stated as "Other Civil Rights."

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Murphy v. Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, et al., Case No. 17-3627, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT J. MURPHY, Esquire, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, represents himself:

          Robert J. Murphy, Esq.
          7 Coopertown Road
          P.O. Box 39
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 896-5416

Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; PAUL J.
KILLIAN, Chief Disciplinary Counsel in his official capacity and
in his personal capacity; MICHAEL D. GOTTSCH, in his official
capacity and in his personal capacity; DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; JANE G. PENNY, Board Chair in her
official capacity and in her personal capacity; and JULIA
FRANKSTON-MORRIS, Esq., Board Secretary in her official capacity
and in her personal capacity, are represented by:

          Andrew J. Coval, Esq.
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300

               - and -

          Michael Daley, Esq.
          SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300
          E-mail: michael.daley@pacourts.us


PFIZER INC: Asks Supreme Court to Review Order in Rite Aid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-
Lambert Co. LLC, Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States from an opinion entered by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 21, 2017, in the
lawsuits involving RITE AID CORPORATION, et al., WALGREEN COMPANY,
et al., GIANT EAGLE, INC., MEIJER INC., et al., ROCHESTER DRUG CO-
OPERATIVE, INC., et al., AFL-AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, et
al., Case Nos. 14-4202, 14-4203, 14-4204, 14-4205, 14-4206, 14-
4602.

The question presented is: Whether an antitrust complaint alleging
a "large" and "unjustified" reverse payment settlement agreement
states a plausible claim for relief when it cherry-picks among
pieces of a larger agreement to conjure a purported transfer of
value from a patentee to patent challenger, but does not account
for the net flow of consideration.

The Supreme Court case is captioned as PFIZER INC., PFIZER IRELAND
PHARMACEUTICALS, WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY
LLC, RANBAXY INC., RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND RANBAXY
LABORATORIES LTD. v. RITE AID CORPORATION, et al., WALGREEN
COMPANY, et al., GIANT EAGLE, INC., MEIJER INC., et al., ROCHESTER
DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., et al., AFL-AGC BUILDING TRADES WELFARE
PLAN, et al., Case No. 17-752, in the Supreme Court of the United
States.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Third
Circuit breathed new life on August 21, into antitrust lawsuits
against four pharmaceuticals giants concerning the delayed entry
to the market of generic versions of Lipitor and Effexor XR.

Rite Aid, Walgreens and various labor unions are at the helm of
the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey.  As direct purchasers
and end payors of various pharmaceuticals, the plaintiffs accused
Pfizer, Ranbaxy and others of entering into reverse-payment
settlement agreements that delayed the enforcement of Lipitor and
Effexor XR patents.

Reverse-settlement payments require the company holding the patent
to pay the alleged infringer in return for the infringer's
agreement not to produce the patented item. In the cases at hand,
Ranbaxy and Teva allegedly accepted such payments to delay
introduction of a generic version of Lipitor or Effexor XR.

Though a federal judge in Philadelphia, dismissed the claims at an
early stage, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit in
Philadelphia reversed on August 23.  The ruling turns on the
plausibility of the allegations, which the federal appeals court
found compelling.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are Rite Aid Corp., Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp., Maxi Drug Inc., Eckerd Corp., JCG (PJC) USA LLC, Walgreen
Co., Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., Supervalu, Inc., HEB Grocery Co.
LP, Giant Eagle, Inc., Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc.,
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Stephen L. Lafrance Pharmacy,
Inc., SAJ Distributors, Burlington Drug Co., Value Drug Co., AFL-
AGC Building Trades Welfare Plan, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland, New Mexico United Food and Commercial Workers
Union's and Employer's Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Louisiana
Health Service Indemnity Co., Bakers Local 433 Health Fund, Twin
Cities Bakery Workers Health and Welfare Fund, Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale 31, Insurance Trust Fund, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98, New York Hotel Trades
Counsel & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Health
Benefits Fund, Edward Czarnecki, Emilie Heinle, Frank Palter,
Andrew Livezey, Edward Ellenson, Jean Ellyne Dougan, and Nancy
Billington, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Pfizer Inc., et al., are represented by:

          Robert A. Milne, Esq.
          Raj S. Gandesha, Esq.
          Bryan D. Gant, Esq.
          Sheryn George, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Sixth Avenue
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          E-mail: rmilne@whitecase.com
                  rgandesha@whitecase.com
                  bgant@whitecase.com
                  sheryn.george@whitecase.com

Defendants-Petitioners Ranbaxy Inc., et al., are represented by:

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com

               - and -

          John C. O'Quinn, Esq.
          Michael D. Shumsky, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Janow, Esq.
          Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5191
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: john.oquinn@kirkland.com
                  michael.shumsky@kirkland.com
                  jonathan.janow@kirkland.com


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Bower" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Bower moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled RHONDA BOWER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PHILLIPS & COHEN
ASSOCIATES, LTD., Case No. 2:17-cv-01683-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=mkOnoAMP

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


PLATTE RIVER: Court Denies Stay of Bond Enforcement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York issued a Decision and Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Stay the case captioned TURF NATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. PLATTE
RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 17-CV-534V(F) (W.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff seeks payment from Defendant, a surety, for
approximately $145,000 representing an unpaid balance due for
artificial turf manufactured by Plaintiff and ordered by UBU
Sports, Inc., a non-party, as general contractor and Defendant's
principal, for a recently constructed professional football
practice field under a public works contract awarded to UBU by
Erie County as owner of the facility and the obligee on
Defendant's surety bond (Erie County Project).

The basis for Defendant's motion is Plaintiff's action against UBU
pending in Superior Court of Delaware (Delaware Court Action)
which Plaintiff commenced approximately four months before the
instant action, as a class action on behalf of unpaid materialmen
to recover approximately $369,000 for artificial turf sold to UBU
for installation at two facilities located in New York State
including the Erie County Project (the other is a high school in
Philadelphia, N.Y.) (New York State Projects).

In the Delaware Court Action, Plaintiff also seeks payment against
UBU for approximately $3 million, now known as Artificial Turf
Sports Field, Inc., for unpaid shipments of Plaintiff's turf for
20 projects, similar to the Erie County Project, including the New
York State Projects, located within the United States during the
period May to November 2016.

Defendant's motion is premised on Defendant's assertion that UBU's
alleged debt to Plaintiff for the turf supplied for the Erie
County Project, which is the basis for Plaintiff's claim on
Defendant's bond, will be determined in the Delaware Court Action
albeit as a component of Plaintiff's numerous other claims arising
on the other projects which are the subject of the Delaware Court
Action, and if that claim is decided against Plaintiff, it will
moot the instant action under collateral estoppel as Plaintiff is
a party to the Delaware Court Action and will be thus bound by the
Delaware court's determination.

Defendant therefore contends Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a
stay of this action whereas Defendant will be burdened by
significant and potentially unnecessary litigation costs in this
case if Defendant's request for stay is not granted.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that delaying this action in favor
of the Delaware Court Action is inconsistent with Plaintiff's
right to enforce Defendant's bond protecting Plaintiff as
Defendant's supplier for amounts due Plaintiff in connection with
the Erie County Project and will result in severe prejudice to
Plaintiff as Defendant has admitted in the Delaware Court Action
it is unable to pay current debts, and delaying Plaintiff's
recovery in this action will render collection of a judgment in
Plaintiff's favor in the Delaware Court Action problematic
assuming Plaintiff prevails.

Generally a stay will be granted where, in the discretion of the
court, the interests of justice require. Here, Defendant has not
met its burden to establish that a stay of this action should be
granted pending the outcome of the Delaware Court Action.
First, there is insufficient identicality of claims between the
Delaware Court Action and the instant action in that in this case
Defendant raises several surety defenses that will not be resolved
in the Delaware Court Action, and granting a stay usually occurs
where deference to another pending action will result in a
complete resolution of the litigation for which a stay is
requested.

Second, there are numerous allegations and counter-allegations of
corporate malfeasance involved in the Delaware Court Action
creating a distinct likelihood, if not certainty, that discovery
and motion practice in the Delaware Court Action will be
protracted and resolution, including Plaintiff's claim with
respect to the Erie County Project, therefore substantially
delayed. Thus, Plaintiff's potential entitlement to recovery and
payment as a result of a favorable determination in this action
will be prejudiced if this action is stayed in deference to the
Delaware Court Action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya374672
from Leagle.com.

Turf Nation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Seth L. Hibbert,
Getman & Biryla, LLP, 14 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York
14203-1995.

Turf Nation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Thomas P. Clinkscales
-- tom.clinkscales@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice &
William S. Sugden -- will.sugden@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
pro hac vice.

Platte River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Theodore
M. Baum -- TBAUM@MDMC-LAW.COM -- McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney
&Carpenter, LLP.

Platte River Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Theodore M. Baum, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &Carpenter, LLP.

Turf Nation, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Seth L.
Hibbert, Getman & Biryla, LLP, Thomas P. Clinkscales, Alston &
Bird LLP & William S. Sugden, Alston & Bird LLP.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "DeJong" Suit in New Hampshire
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, L.L.C. The case is styled Cameron DeJong, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law
Offices Howard Lee Schiff, PC and Portfolio Recovery Associates,
L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00721  (D. N.H., December 15,
2017).

PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mary F. Stewart
   Mary Stewart Law PLLC
   2 1/2 Beacon St, Ste 285
   Concord, NH 03301
   Tel: (603) 226-7450
   Email: marystewartlaw@comcast.net


RALPH PACO: Faces "Suarez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph, Paco &
Roberto, Inc. The case is styled Pamela Suarez, individually on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ralph, Paco & Roberto, Inc. and Honky Tots, Inc. d/b/a California
Baby + Kids, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-09847 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 15, 2017).

Ralph, Paco & Roberto, Inc. is a restaurant located in Los
Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group PC
   77 Water Street, 8th Floor
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (646) 722-4266
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


SAKS INCORPORATED: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nunez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Randy Nunez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Randy Nunez v. Saks Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02717-JAH-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants' advertised false comparable prices
and false price discounts for merchandise sold throughout its
retail stores and on its Internet Web site.

Saks Incorporated operates Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH stores and
the saksoff5th.com Web site, and advertises, markets, distributes,
and sells clothing and clothing accessories in California and
throughout the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Randy Nunez v. Saks
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-56821, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Randy Nunez's opening brief is due on February 2,
      2018;

   -- Appellees Does and Saks Incorporated's answering brief is
      due on March 5, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant RANDY NUNEZ, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, 10th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

Defendant-Appellee SAKS INCORPORATED, a Tennessee corporation, is
represented by:

          Rachel R. Goldberg, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: rachel.goldberg@sidley.com

               - and -

          Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          E-mail: alally@sidley.com


SEECO INC: Smith Appeals E.D. Arkansas Order to Eighth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Connie Jean Smith filed an appeal from a court order
dated October 31, 2017, entered in the lawsuit styled Connie Smith
v. SEECO, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 24, 2017, several
movants and parties have filed appeals in the lawsuit.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith v. SEECO, Inc., et
al., Case No. 17-3636, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before January 16, 2018;

   -- Appendix is due on January 23, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant Connie Jean Smith is due on January 23,
      2018;

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

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

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

               - and -

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


SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Walters" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Credit, Inc.
The case is styled Camille Walters, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sentry Credit, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07305 (E.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017).

Sentry Credit is collection recovery specialist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SETON FAMILY: Stepp Moves to Certify Class of Former Nurses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JENNY STEPP, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SETON FAMILY OF
HOSPITALS, ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE, SETON HEALTHCARE d/b/a SETON
HIGHLAND LAKES HOSPITAL, SETON MEDICAL CENTER AUSTIN, SETON
MEDICAL CENTER HAYS, SETON MEDICAL CENTER WILLIAMSON, SETON
NORTHWEST HOSPITAL, SETON SHOAL CREEK HOSPITAL, SETON SMITHVILLE
REGIONAL HOSPITAL, SETON SOUTHWEST HOSPITAL, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER BRACKENRIDGE, Case No. 1:16-cv-01251-RP (W.D. Tex.), asks
the Court conditionally certify the case as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to a class of the
Defendant's:

     current and former nurses who were subject to an automatic
     meal break deduction and worked at Seton Highland Lakes
     Hospital, Seton Medical Center Austin, Seton Medical Center
     Hays, Seton Medical Center Williamson, Seton Northwest
     Hospital, Seton Shoal Creek Hospital, Seton Smithville
     Regional Hospital, Seton Southwest Hospital, University
     Medical Center Brackenridge (now Dell Seton Medical Center
     at the University of Texas), Dell Children's Medical Center
     at Central Texas, or Seton Edgar B. Davis Hospital at any
     time from three years prior to the granting of this Motion
     to the present.

Ms. Stepp also asks the Court to:

   (1) require the Defendant to produce within 10 days of the
       granting of this Motion in a computer readable format, the
       names, all known addresses, all phone numbers (home,
       mobile, etc.), dates of birth, all known e-mail addresses
       (work and personal), hospital facilities worked, and dates
       of employment for all class members;

   (2) approve the proposed Notice and Consent Form and authorize
       mailing to Class Members via regular mail and e-mail
       within seven days of Plaintiff's counsel receiving the
       class list from Defendant, and allow Plaintiff's counsel
       to hire a third-party class action administration company
       if they deem appropriate;

   (3) allow Class Members to execute their consent forms
       electronically via DocuSign;

   (4) approve that a postcard reminder be sent out via regular
       mail and e-mail 30 days after the initial mailing, but
       only to those class members who have not yet submitted
       their Consent Forms;

   (5) approve the proposed workplace Notice of Rights to be
       posted at Defendant's time clocks in the eleven facilities
       named in this motion; and

   (6) prohibit Defendant from communicating with the class
       members regarding this lawsuit until the end of the opt-in
       period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Rose M. Molina, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  rmolina@kennedyhodges.com


SIGNIA MARKETING: "Hodge" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting Final Approval on Class Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned DESIRE HODGE, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIGNIA
MARKETING, LTD, and JEFFREY FELL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-
cv-02839-KMT (D. Colo.).

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that an employee or
multiple employees may bring an action on behalf of himself or
themselves and other employees similarly situated. This court
conditionally certified the collective as all former and current
hourly workers of Defendants from December 31, 2012 to the present
who were paid at a straight time rate for overtime.

At the fairness hearing, both parties continued to represent that
in their opinions the Settlement is fair and reasonable and that
no facts have come to light since the court preliminary order
which would change or influence the decision in a different
direction. In light of the extensive examination of the fairness
and reasonableness of the settlement set forth in the court's
October 24 Order, the court will not set forth the same findings
again here.

The court finds that the value of the Settlement greatly outweighs
the possibility of recovery after protracted litigation. Given
this significant financial benefit to the Class, the court has
little difficulty concluding that the presumption in favor of
voluntary settlements has been satisfied here.

Based on these findings, the court orders that the collective
described as all former and current hourly workers of Defendants
from December 31, 2012 to the present who were paid at a straight
time rate for overtime is certified.

The Settlement as described in the October 24 Order and in the
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Collective
Settlement and Final Fairness Hearing Settlement Agreement
including the Settlement and Release Agreement is fully and
finally approved.

The Court awards attorneys' fees to the attorneys for the
collective in the amount of $100,000, paid by Defendants over a
period of twenty months.

The attorneys for the collective are awarded $25,000.00 as
reimbursement for all expenses incurred in prosecuting this
action, including for any expenses yet to be incurred in
connection with safeguarding the administration of the collective.

Incentive awards of $2,000.00 to Desire Hodge and $500.00 each to
Kathryn Fresquez and Sean Vance are approved.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9dqhbrw from
Leagle.com.

Desire Hodge, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Zijian Guan --
cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC.

Desire Hodge, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Travis Brown --
jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC.

Signia Marketing, LTD, Defendant, represented by Joshua Darwin
Brown, Lee & Kinder, LLC. 3801 East Florida Avenue, Suite 210,
Denver, CO 80210

Jeffrey Fell, Defendant, represented by Joshua Darwin Brown, Lee &
Kinder, LLC.


SINGER FINANCIAL: KHS Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KHS CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. SINGER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PAUL
SINGER, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 2:16-cv-00055-AB (E.D. Pa.),
moves for entry of an order certifying this class:

     Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
     during the period June 24, 2014 to June 22, 2016, from
     Singer Financial Corp. promoting the availability of
     commercial loans or real estate.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants'
alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  jon@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
          SHERMAN, SILVERMAN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY
          East Gate Center
          308 Harper Drive, Suite 200
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 662-0700
          E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com


SMART ONE: Court Adopts Denial of Approval of "Oladapo" Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses'
Report and Recommendation denying Parties Uncontested Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned AYODAPO OLADAPO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMART ONE ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant, No. 14 CV 7117-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.).

No objections to the Report have been filed by either party.
Therefore, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 30, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxjrcjg from Leagle.com.

Ayodapo Oladapo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Joseph LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Ayodapo Oladapo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard David Greenfield,
Greenfield & Goodman LLC, 250 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013,
Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Beatrice Yakubu -- byakubu@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Smart One Energy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph Andrew
Boyle -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP &
Elizabeth D. Silver, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.


STATE FARM: Lavelle Moves to Certify Class of Insureds in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled EVNA T. LAVELLE and LAVENIA
LAVELLE, individually and as the representative of all persons
similarly situated and in a representative capacity on behalf of
the interests of the general public v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-01082-RBW (D.D.C.),
move the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All insureds of Defendant State Farm with District of
     Columbia policies issued in the District of Columbia, where
     the insured's vehicle damages were covered under their UIM
     PD coverage, and

     1. the repair estimates on the vehicle (including any
        supplements) totaled at least $1,000;

     2. the vehicle was no more than six years old (model year
        plus five years) and had less than 90,000 miles on it at
        the time of the accident; and

     3. the vehicle suffered structural (frame) damage and/or
        deformed sheet metal and/or required body or paint work.

     Excluded from the Class are a) claims involving leased
     vehicles or total losses, and b) claims of the assigned
     judge, the judge's staff and family.

The Lavelles seek a class recovery for the alleged failure of the
Defendant to pay diminished value loss on claims paid by State
Farm under their Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Property
Damage ("UIM PD") Coverage during the Class Period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C6r3p1Rl

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob M. Lebowitz, Esq.
          POSEY LEBOWITZ PLLC
          3221 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-0123
          Facsimile: (202) 810-9009
          E-mail: jlebowitz@poseylebowitz.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Nace, Esq.
          NIDEL & NACE, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 478-9677
          Facsimile: (301) 963-8135
          E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Nealey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY
          71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 231-5311
          Facsimile: (415) 231-5313
          E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S.
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          Facsimile: (253) 301-1147
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
          REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
          4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (281) 768-4731
          Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
          E-mail: chunter@reichandbinstock.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brittany Michelle Cambre, Esq.
          Thomas William Curvin, Esq.
          Tracey Katagi Ledbetter, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          999 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 853-8063
          Facsimile: (404) 853-8806
          E-mail: brittanycambre@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  tom.curvin@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Gail Lynn Westover, Esq.
          Wilson G. Barmeyer, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001-3980
          Telephone: (202) 383-0353
          Facsimile: (202) 637-3593
          E-mail: gailwestover@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  wilsonbarmeyer@eversheds-sutherland.com


TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Wins Bid to Decertify "Lindsey" Collective Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit styled JUSTIN LINDSEY, et al. v. TIRE DISCOUNTERS, INC.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03065-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio):

   (1) granting Tire Discounters Inc.'s Motion to Decertify the
       Conditional Collective Action;

   (2) denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under
       Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (3) denying Tire Discounters' Motion for Summary Judgment;

   (4) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion
       for Partial Summary Judgment on the Method of Calculating
       Damages; and

   (5) denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
       Supplemental Brief in support of their positions on the
       Motion to Decertify and the Motion for Class
       Certification.

The case arises out of Tire Discounters' alleged classification of
its Service Manager position as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

The claims of all opt-in plaintiffs, excluding lead Plaintiffs
Lindsey and Titus, are dismissed without prejudice, the Court
rules.  The Court further recommends that the parties engage in
mediation to resolve the claims of Lindsey and Titus.

If the parties wish to participate in mediation, they may contact
Judge Jolson's chambers at (614) 719-3470 to schedule a mediation
through the Court, Judge Smith says. Judge Smith adds that the
Clerk shall remove Documents 68, 69, 79, 80, and 95 from the
Court's pending motions list.

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


TITAN TRANSFER: Ratliff's Motion to Certify Denied as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 1, 2017, in the case
titled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Titan Transfer, Inc., Case No. 1:17-
cv-07209 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Manish S. Shah.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied without prejudice as premature.  The
Plaintiff is expected to supplement or renew the motion and then
brief the merits of class certification.

The Court views placeholder class certification motions as
unnecessary to avoid mootness concerns.

The Defendant states that it intends to file a motion to dismiss,
according to the minute entry.  Unless the motion questions the
jurisdiction of this Court to hear the case, the Court will not
stay the MIDP responses (or Defendant's obligation to file an
answer along with any motion to dismiss).

The Court also set these dates:

    -- Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss
       is due on January 3, 2018;

    -- Defendants' reply is due on January 17, 2018; and

    -- Status hearing is reset to January 31, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.,
       when the Court will set the remainder of the scheduling
       order.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6xIok5G3


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Leavens" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled Matthew Leavens, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07360 (E.D. N.Y., December 18,
2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Ibrahim Files Suit v. U.S. Immigration Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assistant Field
Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Juan
Acosta. The case is styled Farah Ibrahim, Ibrahim Musa, Khalid
Abdallah Mohmed, Ismail Jimcale Abdullah, Abdiwali Ahmed Siyad,
Ismael Abdirashed Mohamed and Khadar Abdi Ibrahim, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Assistant Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Juan Acosta, Sheriff of Glades County David Hardin,
Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Miami Office Marc J. Moore, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan and Secretary of Homeland
Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24574-DPG
(S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017).

The Defendants are government representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrea Montavon-McKillip, Esq.
   Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc.
   491 North State Road 7
   Plantation, FL 33317
   Tel: (954) 736-2493
   Fax: (954) 736-2484
   Email: andrea@amlawpa.com

      - and -

   Lisa M Berlow-Lehner, Esq.
   Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, PL
   2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3800
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (786) 431-2228
   Fax: (786) 431-2229
   Email: L.LEHNER@LEHNER-LAW.COM

      - and -

   Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Esq.
   University of Miami School of Law
   1311 Miller Drive
   E-273
   Coral Gables, FL 33146
   Tel: (305) 284-6092
   Fax: (305) 284-6093
   Email: rsharpless@law.miami.edu


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Enlistees in "Kirwa" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ellen Segal Huvelle entered a memorandum opinion in the
lawsuit styled MAHLON KIRWA, et al. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01793-ESH (D.D.C.), regarding a
dispute on a motion to certify a class.

According to the Memorandum Opinion, the only remaining dispute
between the parties regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is whether the class should be defined as those
MAVNI enlistees, who have not received a completed Form N-426 as
October 25, 2017, or whether the class should be defined as those
MAVNI enlistees, who have not received a completed Form N-426 as
of the filing of this opinion.

Consistent with the definition the Court used to provisionally
certify the class, the Court will define the class as:

     all persons who (1) have enlisted in the U.S. military
     through the Military Accessions Vital to the National
     Interest ("MAVNI") program prior to October 13, 2017, (2)
     who have served in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
     ("Selected Reserve"), and (3) have not received a completed
     and duly authenticated Form N-426.

The formal joint communication to the class members, which the
Defendants have agreed to distribute, shall not be disseminated
until the Court's resolution of the dispute between the parties
regarding language about the class members' rights under the
preliminary injunction, Judge Huvelle states.

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


UNITED STATES: T. D'Apuzzo Seeks to Certify Class of PACER Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled THEODORE D'APUZZO, P.A.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 0:16-cv-62769-RNS (S.D. Fla.),
asks the Court to certify the action as a class action, with a
proposed "Class" definition of:

     All PACER users who, between November 22, 2010 and
     November 22, 2016, paid to access a document constituting a
     judicial opinion.

PACER stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, an
electronic system used by federal courts to provide the public
with access to judicial records, and draws the documents
accessible via it from the local CM/ECF Web sites of the nation's
federal courts.  As alleged in the Complaint, the putative class
action relates to PACER charging its users to access documents
constituting judicial opinions, in violation of the E-Government
Act of 2002's mandate requiring all federal courts to furnish the
public with "[a]ccess to the substance of all written opinions
issued by the court," i.e., free opinions access.  These charges
also violate the terms -- both express and implied -- of PACER's
contracts with its users, including the Electronic Public Access
Fee Schedule, which states, "No fee is charged for access to
judicial opinions," the Plaintiff argues.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court grant to appoint it as Class
representative, and to appoint its attorneys as Class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iH1t8M1M

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole W. Giuliano, Esq.
          GIULIANO LAW, P.A.
          500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1710
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 848-2940
          E-mail: nicole@giulianolaw.com

               - and -

          John Anthony Van Ness, Esq.
          VAN NESS LAW FIRM, PLC
          1239 East Newport Center Dr., Suite 110
          Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
          Telephone: (954) 571-2031
          E-mail: tvanness@vanlawfl.com

               - and -

          Morgan L. Weinstein, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN LAW, P.A.
          66 West Flagler Street, 11th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (954) 540-2755
          E-mail: morgan@mlwlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alicia H. Welch, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 961-9001
          Facsimile: (305) 530-7679
          E-mail: Alicia.Welch@usdoj.gov


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Ruling in "Kenny", Jan. 9 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Kris
Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00967-R-
KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Kris Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56809, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants have
previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Kris Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
17-80111.

The lawsuit was filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court, and
was later removed to the District Court.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that an Oral
Argument will be held on January 9, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KRIS KENNY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          David M. deRubertis, Esq.
          THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
          4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 761-2322
          Facsimile: (818) 761-2323
          E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com

Defendants-Appellants WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, are represented by:

          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7708
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com
                  farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: CMC in "Carroll" Continued to January 2018
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order to Continue
Case Management Conference in the case captioned KELLY CARROLL,
ANTONIO PONCE, CHRYSTIANE LAYOG, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-02321 EMC
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Kelly Carroll, Antonio Ponce, and Chrystiane Layog, and
Defendants Wells Fargo & Company, and Wells Fargo Bank, stipulate
that further telephonic Case Management Conference set for
December 8, 2017 and the filing of the updated joint statement in
advance of same be vacated pending the resolution of the
plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval in the
Daniel/Alexander matter, set to be heard on December 14, 2017, and
continued to a date from Monday to Thursday the week of January
29, 2018 (counsel is not available Friday that week), or one
convenient to the Court's calendar thereafter.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's November 30, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycgauopz from
Leagle.com.

Kelly Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla --
questions@pandrlaw.com -- Padilla & Rodriguez, L.L.P.

Kelly Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Roger Markham --
dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm, Genevieve
Estrada -- gestrada@rwillslawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, Jose Moises
Cedillos, 5433 Westheimer Rd., Suite 825, Houston, Texas 77056,
pro hac vice, Peggy J. Reali -- preali@realilaw.com -- The Markham
Law Firm & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac
vice. 1776 Yorktown Street, Suite 570, Houston, Texas 77056

Chrystiane Layog, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin Brock Lindsay -
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- Attorney at Law, David Roger Markham, The
Markham Law Firm, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez,
L.L.P., Maggie K. Realin -- mrealin@markham-law.com -- The Markham
Law Firm, Peggy J. Reali, The Markham Law Firm, Richard Edward
Quintilone, II -- redq@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates &
Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Antonio Ponce, Plaintiff, represented by David Roger Markham, The
Markham Law Firm, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, L.L.P.
& Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Michael Devito, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali, The
Markham Law Firm.

Yvette Ramirez, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali, The
Markham Law Firm.

Bernadette Richard, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali,
The Markham Law Firm.

Henry Maroquin, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali, The
Markham Law Firm.

Jeremy Uzqueda, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali, The
Markham Law Firm.

Ani Hanesoghlyan, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali,
The Markham Law Firm.

Maria Teresa Arguelles, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J.
Reali, The Markham Law Firm.

Kimia Arya, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali, The
Markham Law Firm.

Lindsay Santini, Intervenor Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali,
The Markham Law Firm.

Wells Fargo & Co., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Andrew More
McNaught -- amcunaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill
Crawley Griset -- jgriset@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP,
pro hac vice, Rachel Megan Hoffer -- rhoffer@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee Alfred --
ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott
Edward Atkinson -- satkinson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Timothy Mitchell Watson -- twatson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Theresa Ann Kading, Attorney at Law,
Andrew More McNaught, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset,
McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro
hac vice, Scott Edward Atkinson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy
Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo, Defendant, represented by Theresa Ann Kading,
Attorney at Law, Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro
hac vice, Andrew More McNaught, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley
Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Warner Kopp,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard L. Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw, pro hac vice,
Scott Edward Atkinson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP &Timothy Mitchell Watson,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Carrie L. Tolstedt, Witness, represented by Enu A. Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey E. Faucette -- jeff@skaggsfaucette.com -- Skaggs Faucette
LLP & Leslie Cooper Vigen -- lvigen@wc.com -- Williams and
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.


WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified in "Dean"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification, to Approve Notice and Consent,
for Authorization to Conduct Discovery on the Identity of All
Putative Class Members and Authorization to Send Notice to
Potential Class Members submitted in the lawsuit captioned URIKA
DEAN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
WHISPERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC and ELSIE EDWARDS (DBA) WHISPERS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Case No. 5:16-cv-01460-M (W.D. Okla.).

The Court conditionally certifies this class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

     Current and former exotic dancers who worked for defendants
     and were subject to defendants' classification of dancers as
     independent contractors at any time from 2013 through the
     present.

The Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel
the names, last known address, and telephone numbers of each
entertainer retained by the Defendants as an independent
contractor from March 1, 2013, through the present, within 14 days
of the date of this Order.  The Court also authorizes the
Plaintiff to provide potential class members with Notice and
Consent forms, via first class mail and Internet Web site posting.

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


WILMOE CORP: Ark. High Ct. Refuses to Certify "Walker" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming the
judgment of the Trial Court denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned CHARLES JERRY WALKER, TIFFANY
LOGNION, AND ALPHONSO WYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS
OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Appellants, v. WILMOE CORP.,
Appellee, No. CV-17-227 (Ark.).

Charles Jerry Walker, Tiffany Lognion, and Alphonso Wynn,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, appeal from the denial of their motion for class
certification in litigation against appellee Wilmoe Corp.

Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by
delving into the merits, that the pleadings and evidence
demonstrate that the class should be certified, and that the trial
court acted without due consideration of applicable case law.

The determination that the class-certification criteria have been
satisfied is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial
court, and this court will not reverse the trial court's decision
absent an abuse of that discretion.

Although the class definitions in the instant case do not require
a determination of whether potential plaintiffs paid or were
charged usurious interest charges, this is not the only issue to
be determined as part of this action. The class definitions
require potential plaintiffs to have incurred a debt arising out
of pawn transactions with National Pawn Shop.  Here, appellee
contends that no loans were ever made and, by extension, no one
ever incurred a debt pursuant to pawn transactions with National
Pawn Shop.

Thus, the circuit court would be required to determine one of the
ultimate issues in the case, whether a debt was incurred before it
could be determined whether prospective plaintiffs could properly
be included in either of the proposed classes. As in Southwestern
Bell, the definitions of the proposed classes are not based on
objective criteria. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to certify the classes.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 30, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dzycmu from Leagle.com.

Omavi Shukur -- oshukur@jwwlawfirm.com -- for appellant.

Williams & Anderson, PLC by: Heather G. Zachary --
hzachary@williamsanderson.com -- Philip E. Kaplan --
pkaplan@williamsanderson.com -- David M. Powell --
dmpowell@williamsanderson.com -- and Alec Gaines --
againes@williamsanderson.com -- for appellee.


WISCONSIN: Campos Has Until Today to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Peterson entered an opinion & order in the
lawsuit entitled EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO, and STANLEY NEWAGO v.
MICHAEL DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVID KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M.
WEBER, KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD HOMRE, and CINDY O'DONNELL, Case No.
3:17-cv-00545-jdp (W.D. Wisc.):

   1. denying Plaintiff Efrain Campos's motion for class
      certification;

   2. granting Plaintiff Juan Nieto's motion for an extension;
      and

   3. allowing the Plaintiffs to have until December 22, 2017, to
      file an amended complaint alleging facts that show that
      each Defendant acted with a retaliatory or improper
      purpose.

Pro se plaintiffs Efrain Campos, Juan Nieto, and Stanley Newago
are inmates in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections (DOC) currently housed at the Columbia Correctional
Institution (CCI).  They bring this proposed class action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that the Defendants -- CCI and DOC
officials -- terminated them from their prison work assignments in
retaliation for Plaintiffs' comments during a prison investigation
and in violation of their procedural due process and equal
protection rights.

Michael Dittmann is warden of Columbia Correctional Institution.

In his Opinion & Order, Judge Peterson notes that a pro se
litigant cannot bring a class action on behalf of others, nor can
a pro se litigant represent another individual litigant.

"So I will deny Campos's motion for class certification, grant
Nieto's motion for an extension, set a new deadline for plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint, and delay screening the amended
complaint until that deadline has passed," Judge Peterson opines.
"If I have not received an amended complaint bearing Nieto's or
Newago's signature by the deadline, I will dismiss them from the
lawsuit and proceed solely with the signed plaintiffs' claims,"
Judge Peterson states.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oX20rx8r


YIN & GANG: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yin & Gang, Inc.,
doing business as: FORK. The case is styled Mary Conner, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yin &
Gang, Inc., doing business as: FORK, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05664-WB (E.D. Penn., December 18, 2017).

Yin & Gang, Inc., doing business as: FORK is in the Eating Places
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com



                           Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies OHA Inspection of KSR in "Balcar"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas B. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky denies Plaintiffs Yale Larry Balcar and Carl
J. Perry, Jr.'s request for an inspection of Kentucky State
Reformatory for mold and asbestos because it is not appropriate at
this time -- the Defendants have not yet been served and discovery
has not yet begun.

Pro se Plaintiffs Yale Larry Balcar and Carl J. Perry, Jr.,
initiated this action, alleging that there is "friable asbestos"
and black mold at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), where they are
incarcerated. They further allege that Defendants Warden Smith and
Commissioner Ballard have knowledge of the inmates' exposure to
these substances at KSR. The Plaintiffs also allege that they
suffer from "COPD" and breathing problems and that "Doctor
Frederick Kemen and his staff refuse to treat for friable asbestos
and black mold to both Plaintiffs."

On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion, requesting the
Court for an order for: "Inspection Report done by OSHA for
evidence of asbestos, friable asbestos, asbestos dust, asbestos
contaminated drinking water, asbestos in the ground at KSR and
black mold that is contaminated dorms and the unreasonably high
concentration of air-borne asbestos particles and the substantial
risk of serious harm to all prisoners health."

The case is YALE LARRY BALCAR et al., Plaintiffs, v. AARON SMITH
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-P599-TBR, (W.D. Ky.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order and Opinion dated
December 12, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/mw9bsV from
Leagle.com.

Yale Larry Balcar, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Carl J. Perry, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Aaron Smith, Kentucky State Reformatory Warden, Defendant,
represented by Linda M. Keeton, Kentucky Justice & Public Safety
Cabinet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hickman Has Established Ford Motor Product Nexus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware recommends denying-in-part Ford Motor Company's motion
for summary judgment with respect to Ford's liability for
Plaintiff Gerald Hickman's injuries allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing brakes when he performed personal automotive work on
his first wife's new 1970 Ford Mustang.

Plaintiff Gerald Hickman filed this personal injury action against
multiple defendants on March 15, 2016, in the Superior Court of
Delaware, asserting claims regarding his alleged harmful exposure
to asbestos, which was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, on April 27, 2016, by Defendant Crane Co.
pursuant to the federal officer removal statue.

The Plaintiff alleges he developed asbestosis and asbestos related
pleural disease as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
materials during his service in the Navy, as well as from his
civilian work with automobiles. Plaintiff contends he was injured
due to exposure to Defendants' asbestos-containing products.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, willful
and wanton conduct, strict liability, and conspiracy.

The Plaintiff is the sole product identification witness in this
case and his deposition occurred on January 31 and February 1,
2017. Plaintiff did not produce any other fact or product
identification witnesses for deposition.

The Court deny-in-part Ford's motion for summary judgment with
respect to Ford's liability for Plaintiff's injuries allegedly
caused by asbestos-containing brakes because Plaintiff has
established product nexus. The Plaintiff has presented sufficient
evidence that Ford supplied original asbestos-containing brakes,
and that the Plaintiff was exposed to this asbestos when he
performed personal automotive work on his first wife's new 1970
Ford Mustang. The Plaintiff testified that he performed all of the
maintenance work on his first wife's 1970 Ford Mustang, which was
new when purchased. He rebuilt the engine, changed out the
exhaust, replaced the valve cover, and replaced the brakes "three
or four" times. He testified that he first replaced the brakes in
1973, and that his wife had not had the brakes replaced before
this time, meaning he removed and replaced the original brakes.

The Court notes that Ford has not addressed this specific
testimony in its briefs, other than a general denial that
Plaintiff was in contact with an original, factory-installed Ford
asbestos-containing part. While Ford appears to dismiss the
testimony as self-serving and inconsistent with other parts of
Plaintiff's testimony, the Court finds that based on the
Plaintiff's first-hand experience on a particular vehicle and is
sufficient to create an issue of fact on product nexus, precluding
summary judgment.

Moreover, the Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to
create an issue of fact as to Ford's knowledge that its brakes
contained asbestos. Mark Taylor, Ford's corporate representative,
testified at a deposition in 2012 that from 1950 through the
1970s, all of Ford's cars had asbestos-containing brakes. Ford did
not begin its phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products from
its vehicles until the "1983 model year Ranger vehicle, although
certain other vehicle applications, such as those used in
emergency vehicles, did not use asbestos prior to this date."

Mr. Taylor testified that, as such, "every single car through 1984
had asbestos at least in the drum brakes," and "was designed by
Ford to have asbestos brakes ... in order to meet the performance
characteristics as outlined by Ford and not have noise or any
other performance issues." The Court concludes that a jury or fact
finder could find that Ford supplied the original, asbestos-
containing brakes to which Plaintiff was exposed, which raises a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to Ford's liability
for Plaintiff's injuries.

Moreover, the Plaintiff identified Ford as a type of vehicle
serviced at both Hickman's Service Station and Hitchens Chevron,
but he could not recall specifically what model or type of Ford
vehicle he encountered. The Plaintiff did not know the maintenance
history of the vehicles serviced, nor did he know the manufacturer
of any parts removed or installed on any vehicle. As such, the
Court determines that there is a foundation lacking to create a
material issue of fact as to when, how, and to what manufacturer's
asbestos-containing product Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.

The Plaintiff argues that under Delaware law, Ford had a duty to
warn about the dangers of asbestos in its automobiles.

The Court explains that under Delaware law, Ford does not have a
duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos incorporated in component
parts manufactured by different companies. However, there is a
duty to warn based upon the characteristics of the manufacturer's
own product, and any necessary warning must be tailored to the
risks associated with the reasonably anticipated use of the
manufacturer's own product.

Therefore, the Court maintains that the foreseeability of harm is
not too "attenuated" to hold Ford liable for Plaintiff's alleged
asbestos related injuries considering that the Plaintiff has
presented testimony based on his first-hand exposure to a
particular Ford vehicle -- that is sufficient to create an issue
of fact on the duty to warn of foreseeable harm, precluding
summary judgment.

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GERALD L. HICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. A. W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-308-
LPS-SRF, (D. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order and Opinion dated
December 12, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/mw9bsV from
Leagle.com.

Gerald L. Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by David Thomas
Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A..

Gerald L. Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by Raeann Warner, Jacobs
& Crumplar, P.A..

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. successor by merger
CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC, Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Jennifer Ann
Kapes, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica L.
Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Buffalo Pumps Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf, James J. Horning, Jr., Wilbraham Lawler & Buba & Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Clayton Industries, Defendant, represented by Robert D. Cecil,
Jr., Tybout, Redfearn & Pell & David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn &
Pell.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC, Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn
Edward Martyniak.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

The Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, Esq. -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- White &
Williams & Rochelle Libid Gumapac, Esq. --
gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter,
Swartz Campbell LLC, Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn
Edward Martyniak.

Gardner Denver Inc., Defendant, represented by Krista Reale Samis,
Margolis Edelstein.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC, Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC
& Shawn Edward Martyniak.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Armand J.
Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
Jennifer D. Donnelly, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
& Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Mack Trucks Inc., Defendant, represented by Ana Marina McCann,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Jennifer
D. Donnelly, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin &
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Marotta Controls Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

National Automative Parts Association, Defendant, represented by
Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Stephanie
Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Navistar Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Jeanne
Sullivan, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A. & Michael T.
Wharton, pro hac vice.

Neles-Jamesbury Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph C. Schoell,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Lindsay B. Orr, Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP & Ryan T. Costa, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to
Buffalo Pumps Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy A. Sullivan,
III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Marotta Controls Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Marotta Controls Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

National Automative Parts Association, Cross Defendant,
represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson
LLC & Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Navistar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Katherine Jeanne
Sullivan, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A..

Neles-Jamesbury Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph C.
Schoell, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Lindsay B. Orr, Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.

The Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian
J. Singewald, White & Williams & Rochelle Libid Gumapac, White &
Williams.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica
L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to
Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, ., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Genuine Parts Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul A.
Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Stephanie Ann Fox,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Mack Trucks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ana Marina
McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Armand J.
Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
Jennifer D. Donnelly, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
& Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Summary Ruling Bid in Ohio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio denies Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s
request for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiffs' alleged failure
to establish that Bendix products were a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiffs' injuries.

Honeywell's expert reports are due on March 13, 2018. The
previously scheduled status conference remains set for February
27, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

Plaintiff, Julia C. Alexander, was diagnosed with peritoneal
mesothelioma in May of 2016. She alleges that she contracted this
disease through exposure to the asbestos contained in Bendix brake
products which were manufactured by the Defendant, Honeywell
International, Inc. She contends that she was exposed to asbestos
containing dust when visiting her boyfriend/fiance, Mr.
Schweinberg, who worked as an automobile mechanic. Ms. Alexander
testified that she visited him at work approximately two to three
times a week, for four hours each visit, from 1987 through 1991.
Throughout this period, Ms. Alexander alleges that she observed
Mr. Schweinberg performed brake work on a variety of vehicles 1 to
3 times a week.

Honeywell has sought dismissal of the claims against them alleging
that Plaintiffs cannot show that exposure to Bendix brakes was a
substantial factor in causing their injuries. Honeywell
acknowledges that Ms. Alexander testified she could recall Mr.
Schweinberg installing Bendix brakes while she was present.
Honeywell also acknowledges her testimony that when installing new
brakes, Mr. Schweinberg would grind, and would use compressed air
to blow out the brakes when inspecting or preparing them for
installation. Nonetheless, Honeywell argues that because she did
not articulate a specific number of Bendix brakes that Mr.
Schweinberg installed in her presence, could not testify how long
he spent grinding each brake, or exactly how many times he used
compressed air to blow out brakes between 1987 and 1991, Ms.
Alexander cannot prove the frequency or length of her exposure.

Although there may be some imprecise and even conflicting
testimony in the record of this case, the Court determines that
the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence upon which a
jury could find that asbestos-containing Bendix brake products
were a substantial factor in Ms. Alexander's injury -- if they
find her testimony to be credible.

Ms. Alexander testified that she was present and in close
proximity to Mr. Steinberg as he performed approximately 1-3 brake
jobs per week over a period of about four years. She testified
that these jobs, whether they were inspection/maintenance jobs or
brake replacement jobs created airborne dust through the use of a
hammer, compressed air to clean the brakes, and a grinder to
prepare new brakes for installation. Ms. Alexander also testified
that Mr. Steinberg installed only Bendix brakes. Although she
could not specifically identify the brand of brakes he services on
vehicles that had brakes installed elsewhere, she did testify that
Mr. Steinberg performed inspections and maintenance on the brakes
he installed.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Ms. Alexander's testimony
identifies Honeywell's product, and provides sufficient evidence
for a jury to determine the manner, proximity, frequency, length
of exposure, and enhancing factors relevant to a determination as
to whether Bendix brakes were a substantial factor in her
contraction of mesothelioma. The Court notes that Honeywell has
pointed to some evidence that may support its own position and be
useful in cross-examination at trial, but this only shows the
existence of a question of material fact which precludes summary
judgment in either party's favor.

The case is JULIA C. ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:17 CV 504,
(N.D. Ohio).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order and Opinion, dated
December 13, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/btzbY1 from
Leagle.com

Julia Alexander, individually and on behalf of S.A., Plaintiff,
represented by Brian R. Herberth, Kelley & Ferraro.

Julia Alexander, individually and on behalf of S.A., Plaintiff,
represented by James L. Ferraro, John M. Murphy, Kelley & Ferraro,
Joyce Chambers Reichard, Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M. Acton, Kelley
& Ferraro.

Kenneth Alexander, individually and on behalf of S.A., Plaintiff,
represented by Brian R. Herberth, Kelley & Ferraro, James L.
Ferraro, John M. Murphy, Kelley & Ferraro, Joyce Chambers
Reichard, Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M. Acton, Kelley & Ferraro.

Adam Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Brian R. Herberth,
Kelley & Ferraro, James L. Ferraro, John M. Murphy, Kelley &
Ferraro, Joyce Chambers Reichard, Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M.
Acton, Kelley & Ferraro.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as Allied
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Melanie M. Irwin, Willman &
Silvaggio, Steven G. Blackmer, Willman & Silvaggio & Joseph D.
Silvaggio, Willman & Silvaggio.

John Does, Defendant, represented by Steven G. Blackmer, Willman &
Silvaggio.

Honeywell International Inc., Cross-Claimant, represented by
Steven G. Blackmer, Willman & Silvaggio & Joseph D. Silvaggio,
Willman & Silvaggio.

Honeywell International Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Steven G. Blackmer, Willman & Silvaggio & Joseph D. Silvaggio,
Willman & Silvaggio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron Granted Leave to Appeal "South" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ANN M. SOUTH,
ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, ETC.,
Defendant-Appellant, -AND- JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, Motion No.
M-5176, Index No. 190029/15, (N.Y. App. Div.), the Defendant-
appellant Chevron Corporation has moved for reargument of, or in
the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, from
the decision and order of the Court, entered on August 29, 2017.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York for the First Department denies the motion to the extent it
seeks reargument. However, to the extent it seeks leave to appeal
to the Court of Appeals, the Court grants the motion and pursuant
to CPLR 5713, certifies that the following question of law
decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen,
which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals:
"Was the order of this Court, which affirmed the order of the
Supreme Court, properly made?"

A full-text copy of the Order, dated December 14, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/IE0S7I from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Reverses Workers' Benefits Grant
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the
Third Department reverses the decision of the Workers'
Compensation Board, filed August 25, 2015, which ruled, among
other things, that the Claimant Robert Pontillo was entitled to
wage replacement benefits due to his reattachment to the labor
market.

Claimant Robert Pontillo established a claim for pulmonary
fibrosis and lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos while working
for Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. Thereafter, Consolidated
Edison provided Claimant with a light-duty position, at which
claimant worked for two days before he retired, thereby
voluntarily withdrawing from the labor market.

Upon a finding that, among other things, the Claimant had
reattached to the labor market as of April 21, 2015, a Workers'
Compensation Law Judge directed awards from May 7, 2015 onwards
and continued the case for further development. Upon review, the
Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Consolidated Edison and its
claims administrator appeal.

The Court agrees with Consolidated Edison that the Board failed to
address its argument that Claimant had not satisfied his burden of
establishing that his inability to find work, and the related loss
of earnings, was causally related to his disability. In order to
be entitled to benefits, the Court explains that a claimant who
has previously voluntarily retired but claims to have subsequently
reattached to the labor market must demonstrate that his or her
"earning capacity and his [or her] ability to find comparable
employment had been adversely affected by his [or her]
disability."

The Court determines that despite Consolidated Edison opposition
that claimant had failed to meet his burden in this regard, the
Board did not discuss or make findings as to whether claimant had
established a relevant nexus between his work-related disability
and his unsuccessful job search. Accordingly, the Court reverses
the Board's decision in order to allow review to occur since the
Board has failed to engage in its fact-finding role and deprived
Consolidated Edison of consideration of the merits of the issue.

The appealed case is In the Matter of the Claim of ROBERT
PONTILLO, Claimant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC., et
al., Appellants. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, 523073
(N.Y. App. Div. 3d).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order, dated December 14,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/UYE7iW from Leagle.com

Cherry, Edson & Kelly, LLP, Tarrytown (Ralph E. Magnetti of
counsel), for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Kevin M.
Lynch of counsel), for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,727 Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to defend itself against
3,727 claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and
used in certain paper mills.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.  Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights.  As of September 30, 2017 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,564 claims.  The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.2 million.  Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be
available with respect to current and future asbestos claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,706 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Albany International Corp. still faces 7,706
claims related to asbestos matters as of September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in
many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a
defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics
containing asbestos.  While Brandon was defending against 7,706
claims as of September 30, 2017, only eight claims have been filed
against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs
have been incurred since 2001.

"Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.  Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Defends Mount Vernon Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. still defends itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits related to products sold by Mount
Vernon Mills, 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 some of these asbestos cases, the Company
is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon").  We acquired
certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.  Certain plaintiffs
allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to
have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this
acquisition.  Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify
the Company against any liability arising out of such products.
We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.  Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims.  On this basis, we have successfully
moved for dismissal in a number of actions."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwest Pipe Completes Contamination Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that it is expecting Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to issue a Certificate of Completion
in late 2017 or early 2018 related to its neighboring asbestos-
contaminated facility.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's sale of its
oil country tubular goods ("OCTG") business, a Limited Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment was conducted at the Houston, Texas
plant and completed in March 2014, which revealed the presence of
volatile organic compounds in the groundwater and certain metals
in the soil.  In June 2014, the Company was accepted into the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") Voluntary
Cleanup Program ("VCP") to address these issues and obtain a
Certificate of Completion from the TCEQ.  The cost of any
potential assessment and cleanup will not be covered by insurance.
The Company believes these costs are likely to be recovered from
the purchaser of the OCTG business upon future sale of the Houston
property.

"The Company implemented a remediation plan that included a
groundwater assessment, which was completed in December 2016, as
well as obtaining a municipal setting designation ordinance to
prevent consumption of shallow groundwater from beneath the
property, thereby eliminating the need for more costly remediation
measures.

"Additionally, in late October 2016, the TCEQ notified the Company
that a neighboring facility has asbestos contamination in its
soil.  In December 2016, the Company was notified that it will
need to assess asbestos contamination before the TCEQ will proceed
with a Certificate of Completion.  In April 2017, the Company
completed the asbestos sampling assessment reviewed by the TCEQ
and the EPA.  In May 2017, the Company submitted the results of
the assessment and anticipates receiving an approval in late 2017.
In August and September 2017, the EPA and the TCEQ, respectively,
informed the Company that no further action in regards to the
asbestos in the property's soil is required.  The Company
anticipates the TCEQ will issue the Certificate of Completion in
late 2017 or early 2018.

"The Company currently estimates that the future costs associated
with the VCP will be between approximately US$0 and US$1.5
million.  As of September 30, 2017, the Company has a nominal
amount accrued for remediation costs based on the low-end estimate
of future costs using a probability-weighted analysis of
remediation approaches, and estimates that completion of the VCP
process will occur between the fourth quarter of 2017 and the
first quarter of 2018."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$74-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s earnings for the quarter include
after-tax charges of US$74 million due to increased asbestos and
environmental (A&E) reserves, according to the Company's press
release included as attachment in the Company's Form 8-K on
October 31, 2017.

The Company states, "During the third quarter of 2017, AFG
completed a comprehensive external study of its asbestos and
environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its
P&C Group and its exposures related to former railroad and
manufacturing operations and sites.  The comprehensive external
study resulted in non-core after-tax special charges of US$74
million (US$113 million pretax) to increase AFG's A&E reserves.

"The P&C Group's asbestos reserves were increased by US$53 million
(net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves were increased
by US$36 million (net of reinsurance).  At September 30, 2017, the
P&C Group's insurance reserves include A&E reserves of US$408
million, net of reinsurance recoverables.  At September 30, 2017,
the property and casualty insurance segment's three-year survival
ratios were 17.5 times paid losses for asbestos reserves, 11.8
times paid losses for environmental reserves and 14.6 times paid
losses for total A&E reserves.  These ratios compare favorably
with industry data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence as
of December 31, 2016, which indicate that industry survival ratios
were 6.2 for asbestos, 7.1 for environmental, and 6.4 for total
A&E reserves.

"Over the past few years, the focus of AFG's asbestos claims
litigation has shifted to smaller companies and companies with
ancillary exposures.  AFG's insureds with these exposures have
been the driver of our P&C asbestos reserve increases in recent
years.  AFG is seeing modestly increasing estimates for indemnity
and defense compared to prior studies.  Overall, the rate of new
asbestos cases received is down modestly.  AFG's comprehensive
external study incorporates, among other factors, the increase in
projected industry ultimate losses attributable to asbestos
exposures, as well as revised estimates for future claims
emergence, which has resulted in an increase in our provision for
future asbestos claims.

"The increase in P&C environmental reserves was primarily
associated with updated estimates of site investigation costs with
respect to existing sites and newly identified sites.  AFG is
seeing increased legal defense costs in environmental claims
generally, as well as a number of claims and sites where the
estimated investigation and remediation costs have increased.
Certain individual claims are taking a longer time to settle than
originally estimated, causing us to increase our reserves to
reflect related increased costs.  As in past years, there were no
new or emerging broad industry trends that were identified in this
study.

"In addition, the study encompassed reserves for asbestos and
environmental exposures of our former railroad and manufacturing
operations.  As a result of the study, AFG increased its reserve
for these asbestos and environmental exposures by US$24 million,
due primarily to relatively small movements across several sites
that primarily reflect changes in the scope and costs of
investigation.  In addition, we have seen a small increase in
claims arising from exposure to deleterious substances other than
asbestos, which has caused us to increase our estimated future
liability."

A full-text copy of the press release is available at
https://is.gd/3wWw8A


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 830 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation still defends itself against 830
active asbestos litigation involving approximately 3,325
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, "As of September 30, 2017, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 830 active cases involving
approximately 3,325 plaintiffs.  The vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants.  At December 31, 2016, U.S. Steel was
a defendant in approximately 845 active cases involving
approximately 3,340 plaintiffs.

"As of September 30, 2017, about 2,500, or approximately 75
percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, we
believe that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert
claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the
total number of plaintiffs.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.  Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/85mkff


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates US$37.0 million potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2017.

Rexnord Corp. states, "The Company's subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other
things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers'
compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental
matters.  The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is
consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for costs associated with such matters when
liability is probable and those costs are capable of being
reasonably estimated.  Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the
range of possible loss or recovery, based upon current
information, management believes the eventual outcome of these
unresolved legal actions, either individually or in the aggregate,
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

"In connection with its sale of the Company, Invensys plc
("Invensys") provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.
The indemnity obligations relating to the matters are subject,
together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to
an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an
amount in excess of US$900 million.  The following paragraphs
summarize the most significant actions and proceedings:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA").  Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex.  The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site.  The relief sought by
the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant.  All previously pending
property damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company
related to the Site have been settled or dismissed.  Pursuant to
its indemnity obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company
in known matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the
costs to date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined.  To
date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the
costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of
these matters.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company
with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos
exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend
and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"The following paragraph summarizes the most significant actions
and proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted
responsibility:

   * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

"Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to
asbestos litigation.  As of September 30, 2017, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 17,000
claims.  Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$37.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$28.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$37.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein and
could be substantial.  The liability for the asbestos-related
claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the condensed
consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2017, is
approximately US$241.8 million, and believes that all current
claims are covered by insurance.  However, principally as a result
of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first US$165.8 million of
aggregate liabilities.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of US$37.0 million, which corresponds
to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.  However, there is no assurance that US$241.8 million
of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed US$241.8 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The
receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in
Other assets within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Pxrv8I


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 23 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that 23 plaintiffs have claims against the
Company's subsidiaries as of September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar
complaints were filed in Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and
general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-
appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At September 30, 2017, 15 plaintiffs have claims pending in
Mississippi and eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana
in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QisOm3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 123 Injury Suits at Sep. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant
in around 123 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of September 30, 2017, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 123 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in excess
of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly, including
from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from
insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers
to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QisOm3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017 that it continues to defend itself
against various asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits.

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

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

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/L4PJsp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continued Probe on Asbestos in Water Supply
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Comer of The Timaru Herald More reports that water will be
delivered to Temuka as investigations continue into the source of
asbestos in the town's water supply.

The Timaru District Council delivered a pallet of bottled water to
the town on Saturday following a busy Friday when demand for
bottled water increased, after the council was forced to divert a
water tanker to deal with water shortages elsewhere in the
district.

The council had to organise more water to be delivered to Temuka
as plumbers were kept busy and bottled water sales rose.

Council communications manager Stephen Doran, on Sunday, said
there was still a few bottles left from Saturday's delivery, with
more to be delivered to the town on Monday.

It is now been more than a week since residents began reporting
low water pressure and their water filters clogged by a substance
confirmed to be asbestos.

"There is no need for people to drink it [the bottled water] but
we are offering it," Doran said.

He was unsure if the water would be delivered in the form of more
bottled water or a water tanker on Monday. The water will be
available at the Temuka Library and Service Centre from 9am.

The source of the asbestos is thought to be a seven kilometre pipe
which dates back to 1964. The pipe runs from the reservoir to a
junction outside Temuka.

Preliminary test results support the focus on the mains pipeline
on the way into Temuka, he said.

Doran said it was unknown how long the investigation would take,
or how much it would cost.

Timaru District Council group manager infrastructure Ashley Harper
said the council was waiting for confirmation of the results, but
that the preliminary data was in line with expectations of what
was happening.

"Further results will be available onwards as we undertake daily
sampling, we are hoping this declines in line with what we're
finding in the field," he said.

"Contractors undertaking flushing of the system have been taking
samples during each operation."

The material collected on each flush indicates that the amount in
the system is decreasing at a reasonable rate.

"Our investigation of the water mains continues, we have pipe
materials experts coming in to advise us. Our water team are also
investigating a variety of other short and long term solutions to
this problem.

Harper said advice the council had received from health
authorities is that the concentration in water doesn't affect its
safety for drinking and all other uses including washing, laundry
and outdoor use.

"If you can see fibres in your system, you may need to flush it
out a bit. Please run the tap till it is clear. If it doesn't
clear, please don't hesitate to call us and we'll send someone
round to help."

South Canterbury medical officer of health, community and public
health Dr Daniel Williams reassured the public around the risk of
breathing in asbestos fibres left behind once water content had
evaporated.

"I understand that people in Temuka are concerned about breathing
in asbestos fibres left behind after they've used tap water for
washing clothes or watering gardens," he said.

"While we are still waiting for test results measuring just how
much asbestos is in the water in Temuka, international studies
have not shown any link between asbestos levels in tap water and
asbestos-related lung disease.

"Both the World Health Organisation and our Ministry of Health
advise that the presence of asbestos in water doesn't make it
unsafe to drink or to use for washing and showering.
"There's no reason not to carry on using the water however if
people prefer to use an alternative supply, the Council is
providing one."

Dr Williams highlighted that while it is always better to reduce
your exposure to asbestos, we are all exposed to asbestos in many
ways, including in building materials, brake linings and at home.

"Asbestos in water does increase the amount of asbestos in the
environment, but that's still likely to be at very low levels
compared to the workplace exposures that most often cause
disease," he said.

"Almost all asbestos-related disease in New Zealand has been
linked to constant heavy exposure to asbestos dust at work or
during intensive DIY home renovation."

A supply of water will continue to be made available to those who
wish to use it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hospital Building is Asbestos-Free
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Rayburn of Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazzette reported
that neighbors and passersby have nothing to worry about when work
starts to get the asbestos out of the old City Hospital building,
project officials say.

The library is set to undergo an 80,000-square-foot, $49 million
expansion. Voters approved a millage increase last year to pay for
construction and operations.

No matter what the addition looks like, it will extend south where
an old church and the former City Hospital site. Those buildings
will have to go.

The City Council OK'd a $257,000 contract with Nabholz
Environmental Services to do the asbestos abatement work. Safety
and Environmental Investigations out of Little Rock was hired in
late July to prepare specifications and oversee the work.

"Any of the surrounding properties or any of the people who may
walk by -- they're going to be protected," said Robert Roberson
with Safety and Environmental Investigations. "That's our goal, to
protect the public and the environment."

Employees from the library and construction contractors discussed
the plans.

Work is scheduled to last until Jan. 19. Crews will work weekdays
except Friday, Christmas Day and New Years Day. The demolition
plan will come afterward.

Asbestos will be pulled out of the ceiling and scraped from the
floor tile. The material will go into bags capable of hauling it
and placed into a lined trash bin.

The only thing noticeable to the public should be the apparatus
pumping the air from inside the building. The exhaust will go
through multiple filters before being released, said David
Stephens with Nabholz, who has 25 years of experience with the
work.

"It's probably cleaner air than what you're breathing right now,"
he said. "The last thing we do is try to get anybody
contaminated."

Maintenance staff has had issues with people damaging the old
building, tagging it with graffiti or trying to break in. The
building has been boarded up and secured, including cutting
overhanging tree branches to dissuade climbers, said Sam Palmer,
facilities director for the library.

Building a fence would have been counter-productive, Palmer said.
People will get in regardless, and a fence would provide a false
sense of security to trespassers, he said. The city has immunity
if anything happens but in the meantime staff has tried to
mitigate the danger.

A security monitor walks the grounds hourly during the day. Police
take over at night, Palmer said.

"They do their paperwork in the City Hospital parking lot," he
said. "There's oftentimes a cop car just parked right there."

The old church building has had its water and electricity turned
off, but crews plan to turn the utilities back on and use the
building as an on-site office. A little bit of asbestos lies
within some of the piping, which the Nabholz crews will take care
of.

It's extremely important people don't break into the building
while crews work over the coming weeks, Palmer said.

"You'll breathe in death," he said. "It's going to be in the air.
It doesn't settle quick. It's going to be suspended for a while.
Don't go in the city hospital during the asbestos remediation
process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Sued for Arms Factory Clean-up Cost
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Uhrich of News@ReadingEeagle.com reported that the company
that plans to operate a power plant under construction on the site
of the former Armorcast foundry in Birdsboro is suing the federal
government to recover the cost of cleaning up hazardous materials
left from mid-20th century war-production activities.

Birdsboro Corp.'s foundry on the site produced heavy armor hull
and turret castings for military tanks from World War II until the
mid-1970s.

According to the lawsuit, filed Nov. 21 in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia by Birdsboro Power LLC, a subsidiary of EmberClear
Corp. of Canada, recent testing and analyses have "demonstrated
significant remaining contamination of PCBs and other hazardous
substances at the site." The suit does say how much money
Birdsboro Power is seeking.

Berks Gas Truth, a group that opposes the plant on environmental
grounds, said in a news release that the company's suit justifies
concerns about a lack of information on site contamination raised
by activists at a public hearing held by DEP on the pending
permits in October.

The construction of both the power plant and the pipeline that
terminates at the contaminated site could pose serious
environmental threats that could put the public's safety and
health at risk, Berks Gas Truth founder Karen Feridun said.

The public comment period for the proposed DTE Birdsboro pipeline,
slated to end Friday, should be extended, she said.

Birdsboro Power purchased the site in October 2016 from Armorcast
L.P., which bought the facility in 1992, four years after
Birsdboro Corp. shuttered it and filed for bankruptcy.

Armorcast leased portions of the site to various companies.
From 2004 through 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection addressed
contamination from war-production activities under the Former Used
Defense Sites program.

Areas of concern cited in the Army Corps' final disclosure
included: 500 square feet of PCB-contaminated concrete, five
above-ground storage tanks, seven underground storage tanks, four
open pits, 17,000 pounds of calcium carbide, 77 capacitors, 22
transformers and asbestos insulation and asbestos debris.

Before buying the site, Birdsboro Power had another site
assessment completed. After analyzing samples of sumps and pits
and concrete, AMO Environmental Decisions found that PCBs and
other contaminants were detected in concrete and water samples at
levels higher than statewide health standards, necessitating
proper disposal plans for the water and concrete.

Demolition of the old facilities and construction of the $500
million natural gas and steam electric power plant began late last
year on 30 acres of the Armorcast site.

Birdsboro Power, a subsidiary of EmberClear Corp. of Canada, still
needs several permits, some related to disturbance of wetlands,
before it can finish the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Chester Hill Suburban Streets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McBeath of The Daily Telegraph reported that ten tonnes of
asbestos has been dumped in the middle of a suburban street in
Chester Hill, metres from the front yards of residents.

About 1am occupants of Patricia Street notified police and fire
crews after noticing the toxic material in the middle of their
street.

Fire crews suited up in hazmat gear to rummage through the waste
and found concrete, branches, piping and asbestos.

The street is currently blocked off and residents have been told
to stay clear of the waste.

Residents leaving for work this morning were forced to manoeuvre
their cars around the pile of waste and police tape.

Bankstown council has been notified and is expected to begin the
clean up some time this morning.

It is unknown at this point whether anyone's health is in risk and
police have urged any residents with information about suspicious
behaviour to come forward.

Resident Wayne Anderson wrote that it was "something different to
wake up to" right in front of his house.

"Oh my god, how low can people get," Anna Mashjaw wrote online.
"Seriously, that's disgusting."

Who the hell does this?" a shocked Facebook user commented
"Potential murderers," Cassie Edwards replied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers Sue Contractor for Asbestos in School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mills of LowellSun.com reported that four teachers at
Greater Lowell Technical High School, including one who is now
permanently disabled, have filed lawsuits alleging they were
injured by asbestos-containing dust and debris left in the school
by contractors during a renovation in 2014 and 2015.

The lawsuits, which are filed against contractors who worked on
the project and not the school itself, remain pending a week after
the same contractors settled a lawsuit filed by the Attorney
General's Office without admitting wrongdoing.

The first of the four lawsuits was filed late last year by Rhonda
Piper, of Dracut, who was a Transition Training Worksite Aid at
the school in 2014 when a $65 million renovation project was
underway.

Piper's lawsuit says she reported to work on June 2, 2014 and
found that asbestos-removal work performed had left dust debris in
her classroom and on her desk. Piper cleaned up the asbestos-
containing dust and debris herself before students arrived,
according to the lawsuit.

Piper suffered several disabling respiratory conditions in the
time since, and has amassed nearly $67,000 in medical expenses as
a result, according to the lawsuit.

Her attorney, Robert D'Auria, of Bedford, said the Department of
Industrial Accidents has since determined that Piper is
permanently disabled.

"She's had just an unbelievably severe reaction to this," D'Auria
said.

Piper, as well as the three other instructors represented by
D'Auria, are suing the project's general contractor, Consigli
Construction; the subcontractor that removed asbestos-containing
materials from the building, R.M. Technologies; and another
subcontractor that was hired to oversee R.M. Tech's work,
Universal Environmental Consultants.

The lawsuits allege R.M. Tech was negligent in failing to properly
seal off and clean areas where asbestos-containing materials were
removed, while Consigli and Universal were negligent in their
oversight of R.M. Tech.

The Attorney General's lawsuit made the same allegations and said
some of the methods used to remove the asbestos-containing
materials violated state laws and regulations.

Consigli paid $195,000 to settle the AG's suit without admitting
wrongdoing, while R.M. Tech forfeited all of it's licenses to
perform asbestos-abatement, and agreed that none of the company's
officers could perform such work for at least five years.
Universal paid $80,000 to settle the AG's lawsuit without
admitting to wrongdoing.

The other plaintiffs suing the companies are special education
teachers Nicole Ignacio, of Windham, N.H., and Thomas Villandry,
of Westford, and Nicole Tellier, of Merrimack, N.H., who is a math
instructor at the school, according to a school directory.
Villandry has suffered exacerbated asthma and post traumatic
stress disorder as a result of his exposure, according to his
lawsuit, which says he has racked up about $10,000 in medical
expenses as a result. D'Auria said Villandry is also waiting for a
report from a specialist he's consulted with regarding his
symptoms.

D'Auria said Ignacio has suffered severe respiratory symptoms, and
that Tellier has suffered a range of ailments that include a skin
condition believed to have been caused by chemicals in the dust.
An attorney who is handling workers compensation claims by GLTHS
staff members who claim they were injured by the dust and debris,
Leonard Nason, said over a half dozen staff members have filed
such claims as a result of the asbestos-removal.

It was not immediately clear if more of those staff members intend
to eventually file suit. Tellier's lawsuit wasn't filed until
Monday.

All three companies named as defendants have denied the
allegations, and Consigli also filed a crossclaim against R.M.
Tech that says the contract between the two companies requires
R.M. Tech to indemnify and defend Consigli from any claims arising
as a result of R.M. Tech's work.

"Consigli Construction Co., Inc., believes these claims are
without merit and cannot comment further on pending litigation,"
the company said in a prepared statement released by Robert Lizza,
Consigli Construction general counsel.

An attorney representing R.M. Tech denies the allegations but
declined to comment at length, and an attorney for Universal did
not return a message seeking comment.

Administrators at GLTHS, which is not accused of wrongdoing in any
of the lawsuits, have posted two lengthy documents addressing
concerns about the asbestos removal on the school's website.
Those documents detail steps the school took to ensure safety
during the project, include reports from contractors and agencies
that monitored the work, and say multiple air-quality tests
performed by both contractors and the Department of Public Health
never found levels of asbestos in the air the exceeded safety
guidelines.

Superintendent Joseph Mastrocola, who was hired after the
renovation was complete, has said he believes the school has made
a clear commitment to the health and safety of all members of the
school community.

"We feel pretty strongly on our end that we took measures that
were reasonable and consistent with industry practice and law,"
Mastrocola said when the AG's lawsuit was settled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Limerick Pensioner's Lung Cancer Due to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hurley of Limerick Leader News reported that a pensioner who
died earlier this year developed lung cancer as a direct result of
his exposure to asbestos while working 50 years ago, his inquest
in Limerick was told.

Limerick Coroners Court was told Daniel McCarthy (71) from
Charleville died at Milford Hospice on the afternoon of April 3,
last.

Garda Ger Summerly said a garda investigation into his sudden
death was launched at the request of Coroner John McNamara given
his exposure to asbestos while working in the UK in the 1960s.

Mr McCarthy, the inquest heard, was admitted to Milford Hospice a
fortnight before he died.

Consultant Pathologist, Dr Terezia Laszlo, told the inquest that a
post mortem examination which was conducted at University Hospital
Limerick showed Mr McCarthy was suffering from a number of
conditions including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and
bronchopneumonia.

She confirmed that mass legions and fibrosis were also found
during the examination and that there were tumours of both of his
lungs.

Dr Laszlo said Mr McCarthy had also developed mesothelioma in
Leoma which, she said, was directly related to his exposure to
asbestos.

She said the cause of death was due to acute respiratory failure
secondary to a malignant tumour.

When informed the pensioner had been exposed to asbestos while
working in the construction industry over a five-year period, she
said the intensity and level of exposure is a more relevant factor
that the length of exposure.

Having considered the medical evidence, Mr McNamara said he was of
the view that a verdict of Occupation Related Disease was
appropriate in the circumstances.

Without the asbestos, it would be regarded as natural causes. That
changes because of his exposure to asbestos," he said.

Returning a verdict, the jury of four men and two women agreed
with the corner's recommendation.

Condolences were expressed to members of Mr McCarthy's family who
were present.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed in Fiji Town Old Market
---------------------------------------------------------
Lice Movono of The Fiji Time Online reported normal traffic flow
to the Nausori town which had been hindered by Asbestos removals
at the towns old market will begin soon.

Meanwhile, the Market Road and the footpath adjacent to the old
market will remain closed for vehicles only until further notice.

The traffic flow was hindered to ensure the safe removal of
Asbestos from the old Nausori Market which began on November 21.

Using a plan submitted to the National Occupational Health and
Safety Service (NOHSS) of the Employment Ministry, the Nausori
Town Council began the removal process.

According to a statement from the Employment Ministry, the
removals process was closely monitored and supervised by NOHSS.

"The Ministry of Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations
is currently working closely with the Nausori Town Council to
clear the old market area of any asbestos containing material and
declare the area clean," the statement said.

"Air tests have been conducted regularly throughout the removal
process by NOHSS ensuring no airborne threats to the workplace and
the surrounding environment."

"The NOHSS has conducted assessments within the immediate vicinity
of the old market including the partially closed Wainibokasi Road
and has concluded that the road barrier be relocated to the
adjacent footpath for public safety reasons."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Suspension for Asbestos Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Visetin of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Blue
Mountains council is facing suspension by the NSW government over
alleged serious asbestos breaches, after the substance was
discovered at a number of council-owned sites including two pre-
schools and a library.

Local government minister Gabrielle Upton issued the council with
a formal notice of intention to suspend in relation to its
asbestos management practices.

The council must respond to the allegations within seven days, or
it will be suspended for three months and a temporary
administrator appointed. Councillors will remain in place during
the seven-day response period.

"I am concerned the council is not functioning effectively
following the volume and scope of recent regulatory notices issued
by SafeWork NSW and the Environment Protection Authority," Ms
Upton said.

The minister's intervention follows the launch of an investigation
by SafeWork NSW on Monday, after inspectors discovered asbestos at
a number of council properties.

The properties included a pre-school building at Wentworth Falls,
a pre-school in Katoomba where asbestos was discovered in leaf
litter in the backyard, and the Lawson Library ceiling.

Asbestos was also discovered in large waste piles at the council
depots at Lawson and Katoomba, buildings at Springwood council
depot, the ceilings and walls at Warrimoo Citizens' Hall, and the
fireplace at Heatherbrae Cottage at Lawson.

Following these discoveries, minister for better regulation Matt
Kean announced he had directed SafeWork NSW to investigate
asbestos management practices at the council.

"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," Mr Kean said on Monday.
He said SafeWork was inspecting around 20 locations nominated as
potential asbestos hot spots.

Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill, a Labor councillor, hit back
at the government's move to suspend the council, saying the
decision was politically motivated.

"The government is setting aside a democratically elected council
before their own inquiry has even got underway," Cr Greenhill
said.

Cr Greenhill said he first became aware of the council's asbestos
issues in May and elevated them to the full council.

Since then, he said the council had been working hand in glove
with SafeWork NSW and had complied with every request, announced
our own investigations, and opened every part of the organisation
to scrutiny.

He said the council would respond to minister Upton's notice
within the seven-day deadline.

Greens councillor Kerry Brown said she had attempted to raise the
issue at recent council meetings after becoming aware there was a
systemic problem in October.

She said members of the community had begun approaching her with
concerns that their family members had been exposed to asbestos.

"The focus should not be on protecting the council or protecting
ourselves. It's about protecting workers and the community," she
said.

She said she believed the councillors had not knowingly
participated in negligence and had assumed that safety systems
were in place and they weren't, but added that we weren't asking
hard questions.

We have not, as a governing body, been across the issue anywhere
near as well as we should have been.

However, she claimed a culture of secrecy within the organisation
had made it difficult for councillors to get information.

"It's almost rude to be asking questions. As a councillor, I have
struggled to get information," she said.

Wentworth Falls Pre-School has been closed by SafeWork until it's
safe for children to return. At other sites, SafeWork has ordered
council to take immediate measures including exclusion zones to
ensure safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Convicted for False Asbestos Training Cert
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff of Mesothelioma.com reported that a man in West
Haven, Connecticut, has been sentenced for falsifying asbestos
training certifications. Guido Cortes-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to
the charge of making a false statement to the federal government.

Cortes-Rodriguez worked as a training manager and instructor at
North Star Center for Human Development. Per asbestos laws and
regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must
approve training courses. North Star did receive approval from the
Department of Public Health (DPH) to offer lead and asbestos
training courses.

Per requirements, Cortes-Rodriguez let DPH know an asbestos
abatement supervisor initial training course and a 32-hour lead
abatement worker course would be happening at North Star's
Hartford facility.

Anyone who performs or supervises asbestos abatement activities in
Connecticut must be certified and complete an approved 40-hour
initial training course to ensure the toxic substance is safely
handled.

An undercover FBI agent attempted to enroll in one of the courses,
but soon found out no course was being taught, neither on the days
he signed up for nor any others for weeks. The agent called and
met up with Cortes-Rodriguez who gave a list of items needed for
the agent to get to work.

These items included name, mailing address, Social Security
number, passport-type photos, and $1,260. The agent brought back
the items, answered biographical questions, filled out paperwork,
and handed over the cash.

In return, he got three fake documents signed by Cortes-Rodriguez
that seemingly met all state requirements to perform asbestos
work. These included a 40-hour asbestos abatement supervisor
initial certification, a 32-hour lead abatement worker initial
certification, and an Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 10-hour construction safety training course
certification.

"Asbestos and lead removal training providers are entrusted with
keeping safe the supervisors, workers, and the public that hire
them," said EPA Criminal Investigation Division's Special Agent
Tyler Amon.

According to Amon, "Trainers who cheat and provide false
certificates will continue to be a focus for EPA enforcement since
they pose too great a risk to the public health."

Further investigation uncovered the FBI agent was not the first
person to receive false asbestos certifications from Cortes-
Rodriguez. He will receive two years of probation. For the first
six months, he'll be confined to his home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP500K payout to Family of Birmingham Doctor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sian Harrison and Alison Stacey of Birmingham Mail News reported
that the family of a Birmingham doctor who died from cancer, which
he believed was caused by breathing in asbestos while a medical
student, is to get a GBP500,000 payout.

Dr Ian Pardoe, a GP and acupuncture specialist, died of
mesothelioma in February 2012, at the age of 51.

Tragically, it was only months after the incurable illness had
been diagnosed.

He underwent experimental treatment in a bid to prolong his life
but the cancer was too aggressive.

In a compensation claim begun before his death, the medic claimed
he was exposed to deadly asbestos while taking shortcuts as a
student in the 1980s.

The dad, who married fiancee Monisha shortly before he died,
claimed to have seen asbestos-lagged pipework in an underground
pass linking the University of Birmingham with the old Queen
Elizabeth Hospital.

Following his death, the claim was continued on behalf of his
estate, although his family faced a fight after both the
university and Secretary of State for Health denied liability.
But on Monday, after out-of-court negotiations, representatives of
his estate agreed to settle the case, with GBP500,000 going to
widow Monisha Pardoe and his family.

Dr Pardoe believed the short cut had been filled with the lethal
substance during maintenance work taking place in the basement
when he was studying medicine there in the 1980s.

The father-of-three and stepfather-of-two made the link to the
asbestos before he died at the QE.

Michael Rawlinson QC, acting for the late GP's estate, told the
court witnesses had come forward to say that they, too, remembered
seeing asbestos dust in the corridor.

Others had denied it, he added. Even had asbestos exposure been
proved, lawyers faced a difficult task in convincing a judge to
award the level of damages claimed.

The claim was partly based on the fact that Dr Pardoe had several
patients when he died. He had insisted they would have been worth
a significant amount had he survived.

The court heard that the case, which had been due for a five-day
trial, was considered by both sides to be a risk.

Instead, they agreed to settle it on the basis that Dr Pardoe's
estate will receive GBP500,000, considered to be 50 per cent of
the full value of the claim.

Judge Patrick Moloney QC signed off the settlement in a brief
hearing at the High Court in London.

Widow Monisha previously told the Birmingham Mail: "We were
devastated by the diagnosis, particularly as Ian knew how serious
it was, but he was determined to fight it.

Ian thought long and hard about where he might have come into
contact with asbestos.

He knew he had been exposed to the dust in the underground
corridors he used as a student to get to and from lectures".
"Ian and I should have had a long and happy married life together
but we've been robbed of that, and his children have lost their
devoted father at such a young age."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cover-up at Pet Resorts Dural
-------------------------------------------------------
Ray Hadley of Ray Hadley Morning Show reveals asbestos is being
covered-up at a pet resort in Sydney's north-west.

Pet Resorts Dural, owned by David and Maria Levy, has been issued
with a draft clean-up notice after 2,000 tonnes of contaminated
material was discovered at the business.

10 truckloads of the material were dumped at the rear of the
property in July.

Whistleblowers have told Ray staff are being instructed to deny
any knowledge of the asbestos to customers.

David and Maria Levy are also facing a $6 million bill to remove
huge amounts of asbestos-laden waste illegally dumped on their
other property on Geelans Rd at Arcadia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 High School Classrooms Closed Due to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harisson Vassey of Blacktown Sun News reported that Doonside
Technology High School was forced to close 23 classrooms this term
due to asbestos fears.

While the state government commits $2.5 billion to stadium
redevelopment plans, two of the Blacktown school's ageing
buildings were sealed off following repairs to an outer roof.

Doonside Technology High School principal Donna Loughran said the
two blocks were closed a few weeks apart as a precaution early in
term four.

A NSW Department of Education spokesman confirmed traces of
asbestos has been discovered in the vermiculite ceilings at four
buildings in the school.

"As a result, these areas were isolated and sealed off, with the
department arranging priority air monitoring tests," he said.
"The results of those tests were compliant with SafeWork NSW
requirements indicating that students and staff would not have
been exposed to airborne asbestos fibres."

The principal said she did not want the sagging and flaking
ceilings repaired until the Christmas holidays due to the risk of
asbestos fibres being released into the air.

Faculties have been sharing spaces including the school hall
throughout the term, as well as using specialist classrooms at
other schools where necessary.

"As Doonside people do, we've made the best of it and pulled
together," Ms Loughran said.

"I'm so lucky and so blessed to have the school community I do.
The staff and students have looked out for each other and been
very cooperative and understanding through this."

While using classrooms at other schools was flagged as a potential
solution for term one of 2018, the principal has secured 10
portable classrooms to be available in case remediation work is
not completed over the Christmas break.

"We are one school community and I made it clear I was absolutely
not having any part of my community going off site," Ms Loughran
said.

The education department spokesman said all remediation work would
be coordinated "through Public Works and under the guidance of an
expert consultant hygienist".

Blacktown MP Stephen Bali said the school is among three in his
electorate with a maintenance backlog of more than $1 million,
along with Blacktown South Public School and Blacktown Boys High
School.

The work now required at the Doonside school may well exceed
previous estimates, which Mr Bali said highlighted the "rubbery"
nature of the figures.

In total, schools in the area were waiting for nearly $11 million
worth of work according to a document released at the end of 2016.
NSW Labor leader Luke Foley said the "obscene amount of money"
being spent on Sydney stadiums should instead be directed to
schools and hospitals.

Mr Bali said it was "atrocious" that students were dealing with
infrastructure failure, and called on the NSW government to
address the maintenance backlog.

"Doonside High is doing an excellent job, I don't want to downplay
the great things they are achieving," he said.

"With crappy facilities the teachers are doing a wonderful job.
Imagine how much better they would be with facilities to be proud
of."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Work at School District
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Anich of The Herald Leader reported that the Greater
Johnstown School District recently did $35,689 worth of emergency
asbestos abatement work at the Johnstown High School's old pool.

Superintendent Patricia Kilburn reported to the Board of Education
at JHS that a certain amount of asbestos was found in a ceiling
above the pool and it had to be removed. Asbestos was discovered
in transite panels and had to be abated per New York state
standards.

Work was done as part of the district's ongoing $39.6 million
capital project.

Kilburn said a $35,689 change order was put in and the asbestos
work was completed. The board previously contracted with Bunkoff
General Contractors to provide general work. The board passed a
formal resolution acknowledging work done.

In another capital projects-related matter, Facilities Committee
member Kathryn Zajicek told the board that the committee toured
Pleasant Avenue Elementary School to see how its capital work has
progressed.

"The work that has been done was very impressive," she said.
Zajicek said the district is still in the middle of the capital
work, although "at some point it will come to an end."

She also reported to the board that the district hopes to
implement its new Facilities Use Form for use in the second
semester. She said the Facilities Committee also discussed parking
at all district buildings.

Kilburn and board President Kathy Dougherty recognized five JHS
students who graduated in August. Dougherty presented diplomas to
the two who were present.

"This is always an exciting time when we recognize our August
graduates," Kilburn said.

Zajicek reported the Johnstown School Museum recently had several
visitors, calling it a positive experience.

Board member Susanne Fitzgerald thanked the students and coaches
spreading holiday teacher in the community, such as dressing as
elves and caroling at a day care settings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gould Pumps Face Raps on Ex-Worker Injury
----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Clair Record reported that a man
employed at various companies in Ohio throughout this career
alleges that exposure to asbestos caused him to develop cancer.

Joseph Tucholski filed a complaint on Nov. 27 in the St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Borg-Warner Corp., FMC Corp., Goulds
Pumps Inc. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during his military career and employment as a general
laborer in Ohio from 1963 to 2016, he was exposed to and inhaled
or ingested asbestiform fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants.

The suit states that on or about Oct. 18, 2016, the plaintiff
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-
induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiff holds Borg-Warner Corp., FMC Corp., Goulds Pumps
Inc., and others responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning
the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos
fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of more than $50,000. He
is represented by Ethan A. Flint and Laci M. Whitley of Flint Law
Firm LLC in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plaque About to Explode in Indonesia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Express reported that the symptoms were mild and seemingly
innocuous at first: mostly coughing and fatigue. But it wasn't
long before Sriyono got a grim diagnosis he had asbestosis an
incurable scarring of the lungs that often leads to cancer.

It was caused by decades of inhaling asbestos fibres at the
factory where the 44-year-old still works outside the sprawling
capital Jakarta.

"There was a feeling of shock," said the rail-thin Sriyono, who
like many Indonesians goes by one name.

"There was no information telling us that asbestos could cause
diseases like cancer when I got into the industry," he told AFP.

The soft-spoken father of three is the first person to win
compensation for exposure to asbestos in Southeast Asia's biggest
economy -- one of the world's top consumers of a toxic material
blamed for more than 100,000 annual deaths globally.

He was awarded 57 million rupiah ($4,200) by the government this
year, and he may not be the last: a local NGO is pushing for
compensation in 15 similar cases.

Asbestos fibres that lodge in the lungs can cause diseases
including lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, according to
the World Health Organization (WHO).

Banned in more than 60 countries, including all members of the EU,
the carcinogenic material is still widely used in developing
countries for construction, textiles, brake pads and cheap
insulation.

Canada, once the world's top producer of asbestos, announced a ban
last year, but some other countries, including Russia and India,
have resisted global efforts to outlaw it.

Very high levels
And asbestos use shows no sign of waning in Asia's emerging
economies, said Ken Takahashi, director of the Asbestos Diseases
Research Institute (ADRI) at the University of Sydney.
"The consumption in these countries remains at a very high level,
exposing many workers and, eventually, as they go into the market
and community there is the potential to expose the general
population as well," he said.

Asia now accounts for more than 60 percent of world asbestos
consumption.

Indonesia's use of the material grew by nearly six times from 1990
through 2012 when it peaked at an all-time high of 161,823 metric
tons before slipping back to 109,000 metric tons in 2014,
according to the latest data from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS).

For years, Sriyono toiled away producing gland packing, which uses
asbestos to seal systems such as pumps and shafts. He was never
warned his health was at risk and did not wear safety equipment
that could have kept him safe.

This limited awareness about the health hazards of asbestos is
typical across the archipelago nation of more than 17,000 islands,
while poor work safety standards compound the problem, health
experts said.

"They let people use it and that means that people don't think it
is dangerous," said Dr Anna Suraya, from the Occupational Doctors
Association of Indonesia.

Families at risk

There are no definitive figures on the number of Indonesian
workers directly exposed to asbestos.

The Indonesia Asbestos Ban Network (INA-BAN) estimates at least
4,000 people are directly involved in the manufacturing of
asbestos products, but that does not include contract and other
non-permanent employees or construction workers.

It also does not take into account the risk of secondary exposure
among workers' families as people can bring asbestos fibreshome
with them on their hands, hair, clothes, shoes or on tools.

Nearly 180 Indonesian companies import asbestos either as a raw
material or finished product.

Because it is cheap and durable, the national statistics agency
estimates asbestos is found in about 10 percent of all homes for
roofing. It can also be found in schools, markets and even
hospitals, activists say.

Indonesia has taken some steps to minimise the impact with
exposure limits and work safety regulations, but enforcement is
haphazard and medical expertise in detecting asbestos-related
disease remains low.

Jakarta, however, is not mulling an outright ban, saying it's
focusing instead on getting the word out about the health risks.
"We've already started awareness-raising programmes, but of course
Indonesia is very big and we have to do it gradually," said
Kartini Rustandi, director of occupational health and sports at
the ministry of health.

That worries some who warn that Indonesia is a public health time
bomb and could suffer the fate of some developed nations that are
awash in asbestos-related lawsuits.

Rian Irawan from INA-BAN said: "We have to join the asbestos ban
now."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Exposed to Rolls-Royce Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Gordon of Derby Telegraph reported that A widow who
believes her husband was exposed to asbestos is calling on his
former colleagues to come forward with information about working
conditions while he was employed at Rolls-Royce in Derby.

Following his National Service with the Royal Artillery, Harold
Jennings was employed by Rolls-Royce as a polisher and emery
dresser from 1953 until 1991.

He initially worked at the Light Alloy Foundry, in Russell Street,
and subsequently at the Precision Casting Facility (PCF), in
Wilmore Road, and was known as a particularly hard worker at the
firm.

His wife, Kathleen Jennings, said: "My husband never said much
about his role or the conditions he worked in. He wasn't the type
of person to moan about anything and got on with his job.

"He had a reputation as a good worker and I am sure they gave him
additional responsibilities because they could rely on him to get
the job done properly."
She said towards the end of 2010, Mr Jennings started to become
breathless and his legs had become swollen. Eventually, after a
night where he was unable to breathe properly, he made an
emergency appointment at his GP's surgery.

Mrs Jennings added: "Harold hated to go to the doctors as he
didn't like to make a fuss. Despite the fact he was struggling to
breathe, he refused to go until I persuaded him. They called an
ambulance from the surgery as he really was in a bad way."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duo Accused of Dumping Asbestos Face Jail
----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffiny Genders of 9News reported that they're accused of using
the cover of darkness to commit a dangerous crime, and they were
once again trying to hide this time from the 9NEWS cameras.
Gabrielle El Sleiman and Anas Koueider covered their faces as they
made a run from Auburn Police Station in western Sydney this
morning, almost 12 hours after they were allegedly caught red-
handed dumping piles of rubbish, riddled with asbestos.

They were dressed in forensic overalls after their original
clothes were thrown in the bin due to contamination fears.
It was security guards who alerted police to the old RMS site on
Burroway Road at Wentworth Point around 9.30pm yesterday.

While on patrol, they allegedly noticed the padlocks had been cut.

Officers arrived on the scene shortly after, arresting the two
men. They also allegedly found a truck with its tipper full of
building materials, as well as a ute which still allegedly had
half a load in its tray.

Officers from the Environmental Protection Authority took samples
from the rubble today, which have since tested positive for
asbestos.

It's estimated there is more than 10 tonnes of debris littered
across the block.

Police don't have the power to charge the men with anything more
than trespass, with their fate now in the hands of the EPA.

If prosecuted and found guilty, they could each face fines of up
to $250,000 or, if the illegal dumping is found to be linked to a
company, the maximum penalty is $1 million.

Jail time is also an option.

After a recent spate of incidents, Inspector Chris Laird has urged
the public to help dob in a dumper.

"In the last week there have been a number of dumping incidents
across south west Sydney," he said.

"It's encouraging (that) members of the community have reported
these sorts of crimes to us.

"If you see illegal dumping, report it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prestatyn Dept. Store Worker Killed by Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Hughes of Daily Post reported that a spell spent working at
one of the world's most famous department stores contributed to
the death of a Prestatyn man, it was revealed at an inquest.

John Edmund Patrick Kavanagh was a porter at Harrods in
Knightsbridge for two years in the '80s and spent much of his time
in the basement and corridors.

He then spent considerably longer as a porter at the Royal Marsden
Hospital, and again much of his time was spent in the basement and
boiler-room.

Both workplaces were extremely dusty and heating pipes were lagged
with asbestos which was deteriorating.

Mr Kavanagh, who moved to North Wales in 2004 to care for his
mother, described the working conditions in a statement made in
May this year, two months before he died in Denbigh Infirmary.

He had been admitted to Glan Clwyd Hospital on June 12 after being
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos, which had caused severe weight loss.

At a hearing in Ruthin John Gittins, coroner for North Wales East
and Central, said there was evidence that Mr Kavanagh, 62, of
Pendre Avenue, Prestatyn, had also been a heroin user.

The coroner recorded a conclusion of death from industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Underway in Calderwood Valley
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Langford of Illiwara Mercury News reported that the asbestos
cleanup about to get underway at Calderwood Valley will dwarf the
previous months' efforts, with thousands of tonnes of contaminated
material needing to be dug out.

The contaminated aggregate is behind about 60 retaining walls
built for much of stage 2A and some of stage 2B at the Lendlease
Calderwood development.

The Environment Protection Agency has ordered Kembla Grange-based
Wollongong Recycling, which supplied the contaminated aggregate,
to have it all removed by March 2.

The EPA would not give an estimate of how much contaminated
material there may be, but said Wollongong Recycling supplied more
than 3,300 tonnes of waste aggregate to primary contractor J.K.
Williams as "free draining backfill".

The amount to be removed will be different, as the EPA's orders
cover any soil that has come into contact with the contaminated
material. Some stockpiles have already been removed.

The EPA said it suspected friable asbestos to be within all the
crushed material used as fill.

For the people who have bought properties in Calderwood, it means
months more waiting before their land can be registered -- and
this could affect 500 properties.

Lendlease could not give an estimate for when the properties could
be registered, and has previously dismissed talk of compensation,
saying there are risks in buying off the plan.

"Wollongong Recycling is responsible for the schedule of work.
Once some of the work is carried out, we will have a clearer
understanding of likely registration timeframes," a Lendlease
spokeswoman said.

"Lendlease has notified residents and customers about the final
phase of the clean-up, and will provide updates as the work
progresses."

Wollongong Recycling is owned by Sydney waste empire Bingo, which
bought it from Helensburgh's Blackwell family in June, about two
months before this trouble started.

Bingo was contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Add $1.1MM Cost to Airfield Rehab
-----------------------------------------------------------
North Bay Business Journal reported that asbestos add $1 million
to the cost to rehab the 50-year-old runway at Marin County's
Gnoss Field Airport in Novato.

Marin County officials blame the boost on discovery of naturally
occurring asbestos in serpentine rock underneath the old runway"
during its renovation. The announcement will put the estimated
cost of reviving the runway to $3.38 million, officials stated.
The problem was discovered in October at the Novato area facility
which has been closed for runway work since September.

The county stated its sample initially turned up 3.6 percent
naturally occurring asbestos, which is above regulatory levels of
0.25 percent. Additional testing found asbestos containing
materials ranging from 0.08 percent to 4.8 percent.

Monte Deignan & Associates, an environmental and industrial
hygiene firm, implemented air monitoring, prepared a safety plan
and conducted contractor and employee training. Construction work
stopped until worker safety and monitoring measures could be
implemented. Under the firm's direction, construction restarted
Oct. 30 with the implementation of strict environmental and
workforce safety precautions, including air quality monitoring,
continual soil samples and mandatory protocols for safely handling
asbestos.

Additional safety precautions were removed Nov. 13.

Additional costs include $100,000 for safety training and
monitoring, as well as the added labor and materials to cover the
asbestos. County General Fund money will cover the added costs for
the moment, until determinations are made if the FFA grant which
is paying for the bulk of the work will cover the additional
costs, the county stated.

The 120-acre airport, on the eastern side of Highway 101 and Mount
Burdell, normally handles about 85,500 flight operations per year
and is a popular destination for both business and pleasure
pilots.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim Wins Court Battle vs. Ford
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.Net reported that a man who had been exposed to
asbestos throughout his child and his adult life has been handed a
legal victory by the United States District Court in Delaware.
Gerald L. Hickman filed an asbestos lawsuit against Ford Motor
Company and several other companies, accusing them of being
responsible for his asbestosis and asbestos related pleural
disease. Ford filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
there was no proof that their products were responsible for Mr.
Hickman's illness, but upon review of the case, the judges
disagreed and denied the automotive company's argument.

The facts of the case tell a remarkable story of nearly continuous
exposure to asbestos over the years. Mr. Hickman's father owned
and operated a service station that offered brake repairs on Ford
and other vehicles using asbestos-contaminated parts. His father
would carry the asbestos dust home on his work clothes. As he grew
older, Hickman took on jobs working for other gas stations and
repair shops, engaging in repair work himself. He even had a part-
time job during his sting in the Navy when he worked at a service
station where repairs were done. Finally, later in his life he did
repair work on a 1970 Ford Mustang belonging to his first wife. In
each of these environments, he was exposed to Ford auto parts that
contained asbestos.

Though Ford's summary judgment argument in the asbestos lawsuit
indicated that there was no proof that Mr. Hickman's asbestosis
and asbestos related pleural disease were caused by their
products, the judges in the case disagreed, saying that Hickman
had provided sufficient evidence that Ford supplied original
asbestos-containing brakes, and that [he] was exposed to this
asbestos when he performed personal automotive work on his first
wife's new 1970 Ford Mustang. The court also indicated that there
was more than enough evidence that Ford knew that their brakes
contained asbestos. The evidence of his other's exposures was not
as strong because he could not provide records on the specific
vehicles that had been serviced at the stations where he worked.
As a result, the negligence and failure to warn asbestos lawsuits
are able to proceed.

When a person is exposed to asbestos, they are immediately at risk
for mesothelioma, as well as asbestosis, the condition that Mr.
Hickman suffered. In many cases, the companies that included
asbestos in their products were aware of its dangers, but
proceeded anyway. If you have been a victim of this type of
disregard, there is plenty of help available to you. Contact
Mesothelioma.net at  1-800-692-8608 to speak to our Patient
Advocates and learn more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WTC Asbestos Victims Wins Against AHAC
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter N. Flocos, Esq. -- peter.flocos@klgates.com -- Michael J.
Lynch, Esq. -- michael.lynch@klgates.com -- Paul C. Fuenerpaul,
Esq. -- fuener@klgates.com -- and Laura K. Veith, Esq. --
laura.veith@klgates.com -- of K&L Gates writing for Lexology, said
on November 29, 2017, the New York Supreme Court issued an
important ruling benefiting policyholders seeking insurance
coverage for toxic tort claims. In American Home Assurance Company
v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, No. 651096/2012, 2017
WL 5890776 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 29, 2017), Justice Eileen Bransten
rejected a series of defenses that American Home Assurance Company
asserted to avoid providing coverage for hundreds of asbestos
injury claims arising from the construction of the original World
Trade Center (WTC). In doing so, Justice Bransten made several
significant rulings under New York law, including:

   Injury During the Policy Period Is Not Required to Trigger
Coverage. The Court held that the American Home policy does not
require injury during the policy period to trigger coverage. In so
ruling, Justice Bransten distinguished the First Department's
decision in Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of
Wausau, 60 A.D.3d. 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (Keasbey), which,
according to American Home, ruled that a general liability policy
is triggered in an asbestos injury case only if the policyholder
contracts a diagnosable disease during the policy period;

   The Underlying Asbestos Claims Do Not Constitute a Single
Occurrence and the Policy Limits Are Not Exhausted. The asbestos
claims arising out of spray-on fireproofing activities at the WTC
project do not constitute a single occurrence, as American Home
had argued, and accordingly, the American Home policy's per-
occurrence limit of liability was not exhausted; and

   The Insurer's Duty to Defend Survives Exhaustion of Limits of
Liability. The Court further held that, even if the policy's
limits of liability are ever determined to be exhausted, American
Home's duty to defend the policyholders from the asbestos claims
would nevertheless continue.

The WTC Claims In 1966, American Home issued to the Port Authority
of New York & New Jersey (the Port Authority) an insurance policy
for the WTC construction project (the Policy). The Policy provided
coverage for (i) the Port Authority, as owner of the project; (ii)
a predecessor of TTV Realty & Construction Co., Inc. (TTV), as the
construction manager; (iii) Alcoa Inc. (Alcoa), the installer of
aluminum curtain walls on the WTC towers; and (iv) Mario & DiBono
Plaster Co., Inc. (M&D), the installer of fireproofing at the
project.

Over the years, numerous claimants have sued the Port Authority,
TTV, Alcoa, and M&D alleging that they have sustained bodily
injuries arising out of exposures to asbestos during the WTC
construction. For over two decades, American Home defended and
settled these claims on behalf of the Port Authority, TTV, and
Alcoa (collectively, the policyholders, M&D is now defunct, under
the Policy. In 2012, however, American Home commenced a coverage
action seeking, among other things, a declaration that it no
longer had any coverage obligations for WTC asbestos claims.
In a fifty-one page decision issued on November 29, 2017, Justice
Bransten denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and
granted the policyholders' motions for summary judgment on the key
coverage issues.

Trigger of Coverage

Under the Policy, American Home agreed to provide coverage for
personal injury claims the insureds are legally obligated to pay
in connection with the WTC construction project. The Policy
further provides coverage for personal injury or property damage
which arises out of the premises-operation hazard, during the
policy period, anywhere. Personal injury is defined in the Policy
as including without limitation bodily injury, sickness, disease,
disability, shock, mental anguish and mental injury.

In its summary judgment motion, American Home, purporting to rely
on Keasbey, argued that (i) under New York's "injury-in-fact"
standard, only diagnosable asbestos-related disease triggers
coverage for asbestos-related personal injury claims; and (ii)
none of the five plaintiffs that it had identified in its motion
as exemplars of WTC plaintiffs had been diagnosed with asbestos-
related diseases until years after the policy period had ended.

The Court disagreed, holding that it is clear that, contrary to
American Home's arguments, the plain language of the Policy does
not require injury during the policy period for coverage to be
triggered. The Court recognized, as a starting point for any
analysis as to what triggers coverage, it must look at the
applicable policy provisions. Examining the language of the
Policy, the Court explained that as reflected by the broad grant
of coverage, [the policyholders] obtained coverage to protect
themselves against liabilities in connection with the construction
of the WTC project and that the Policy did not contain any
provisions that required an underlying plaintiff's personal injury
to occur during the policy period in order to trigger coverage.
Accordingly, the Court held, American Home's theory that a claim
is covered only if the underlying plaintiff's injury arises during
the policy period is inconsistent with a plain language reading of
the Policy provisions.

In addition, the Court observed that American Home's course of
performance over multiple decades of defending and settling WTC
asbestos claims provided a window into American Home's
understanding of the policy language.

Number of Occurrences and Exhaustion of Per Occurrence Limit of
Liability

The Court also rejected American Home's contentions that all WTC
spray-on fireproofing claims constitute one "occurrence" under the
Policy. Accordingly, the Court held that American Home had not
established that its past payments exhausted the $10 million per
occurrence limit applicable to the "premises-operations hazard"
under the Policy.

The Court recognized that New York applies the unfortunate-event
test" to determine whether a set of claims arises from one or
multiple occurrences where a policy does not define occurrence.
Under this test, New York courts apply a two-part inquiry. First,
a court must identify the operative incident or occasion giving
rise to liability. Second, a court must analyze the temporal and
spatial relationships between the incidents and the extent to
which they were part of an undisrupted continuum to determine
whether they can, nonetheless, be viewed as a single unfortunate
event, a single occurrence.

Justice Bransten observed that in the mass bodily injury context,
New York courts applying the unfortunate-event test "have
repeatedly found that multiple claims constitute multiple
occurrences, particularly if the claimants are exposed at separate
times. Justice Bransten ruled that the same is true in asbestos
cases: In the asbestos context, New York courts have consistently
concluded that asbestos claims constitute multiple occurrences
because the claimants in such cases, like the claimants here, were
invariably exposed to asbestos in different ways, for different
periods of time, at different times and locations.

Turning to the WTC claims, the Court held that the operative
incident giving rise to liability is each underlying claimant's
alleged injury. With respect to the temporal and spatial
relationships between the WTC claims, the Court explained that the
policyholders have faced claims arising out of asbestos exposures
(i) over various time periods, (ii) in different locations (iii)
pursuant to different construction contracts, (iv) using at least
two different products, (v) which contain different amounts of
asbestos, (vi) that were applied using various equipment and
applications, and (vii) regarding which the work was interrupted
by several work stoppages. In light of these different events, the
Court held, it is plain that the WTC claims arising out of spray-
on fireproofing do not constitute a single occurrence.

Because American Home could not establish that the "spray-on
fireproofing" claims constitute a single occurrence, the Court
likewise held that American Home could not establish that the
Policy is exhausted, and granted the policyholders' motion for
summary judgment on this point.

American Home's Duty to Defend

In their motion for summary judgment, the policyholders sought a
declaration that American Home's duty to defend under the Policy
does not terminate upon exhaustion of the Policy limits. In
opposition, American Home argued that New York law is settled that
the duty to defend is extinguished when there is no possibility of
an indemnity obligation. The Court noted that (i) the Policy
provides that American Home shall defend any suit against the
insured alleging personal injury and that American Home's
obligation to pay defense costs are in addition to the applicable
limit of liability; and (ii) the Policy does not limit the duty to
defend or condition it on limits of liability remaining to make
indemnity payments. Based on the foregoing, the Court held,
American Home must continue to defend the WTC claims, even if the
policy becomes exhausted.

Conclusion

The Court's rulings confirm that despite the aggressive reading of
Keasbey that insurers proffer to avoid providing coverage for
asbestos claims, such coverage is still available under New York
law. The rulings also confirm that a careful reading of the
particular insurance policy language at issue is essential. The
Court's significant rulings regarding trigger of coverage, number
of occurrences, and the duty to defend each were founded upon the
specific terms and provisions that were included in (or absent
from) the Policy that American Home issued to the WTC
policyholders. Experienced insurance coverage counsel is often
needed to assess an insurer's defense to coverage and to maximize
a policyholder's potential insurance recovery. K&L Gates has
represented clients who face asbestos and other long-tail
liability claims for over thirty years and maintains a group
dedicated to assisting policyholders in assessing and prosecuting
insurance coverage claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Wildfires Unleash Asbestos Concern
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney of Asbestos.Com reported that six major wildfires are
torching Southern California, covering an area larger than New
York City and Boston combined.

The Thomas Fire, the largest of the six and the fifth-largest
blaze in modern California history, covers 238,500 acres. The
other fires have destroyed nearly 260,000 acres, officials said.
At least 18,000 homes and other structures are threatened by the
fires and more than 1,000 structures have been wiped out,
according to the fire protection agency Cal Fire.

Cal Fire officials said the Thomas Fire was 30 percent contained
as of late Wednesday.

Some residents have been allowed back in their homes following
mandatory evacuations, but thousands of other families remain
displaced.

Aside from the dangers of the blaze itself, Cal Fire and other
government agencies are warning Californians about the dangers of
asbestos and other toxins released by the fire.

The air quality conditions remain poor in much of Southern
California. The smoke from the fires alone has forced many to
evacuate their homes, including Dr. Charles Conway, a mesothelioma
specialist and director of surgical oncology at Ridley-Tree Cancer
Center in Santa Barbara.

"The smoke is terrible. My family and I wear masks," Conway told
Asbestos.com. "The visibility is also a big danger. We had to
evacuate because of air quality. Others have to relocate in the
hope of being safe, while still trying to be logistically able to
get to work. People are trying to carry on as normally as
possible."

Another concern is improper cleanup of dust, soot and ash.
Residents and business owners evaluating damage or rummaging
through debris for valuables are at risk of dangerous asbestos
exposure if the appropriate precautions are not taken.

"Inhaling smoke or dust that may contain asbestos is concerning,
and people should be even more diligent about wearing masks and
being cautious," Conway said.

Fires Can Disturb Asbestos Materials

The Thomas Fire has raged in Southern California since Dec. 4,
straddling Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

Gusty Santa Ana winds have fueled the fire, along with the
drought-parched terrain. The fire has left a path of destruction,
reducing more than 700 single-family homes to rubble.

Fire and asbestos are a deadly combination. When houses burn,
asbestos fibers from building materials may become airborne,
creating a toxic situation. Inhaling or ingesting asbestos dust
can lead to serious health conditions such as mesothelioma, a
cancer that usually develops on the lining of the lungs or
abdomen.

Asbestos fibers can travel large distances through smoke and wind,
so while a specific home or business may not contain asbestos
materials, the area can be contaminated from properties that do.

"I don't think there is anyone who shouldn't be wearing a mask at
this point, given where the air quality is right now, how
unhealthy it is," Dr. Richard Belkin, a lung specialist, told
KSBY.com. "Everyone in the community should be wearing masks when
they are outdoors."

The County of Santa Barbara released a message to residents to
take precaution when handling materials or debris left behind by
the wildfires.

Recommendations include:

Using proper face masks.

Health officials have handed out more than 200,000 free N95-rated
face masks, according to The Tribune in San Luis Obispo. Dusk
masks and surgical masks aren't effective at filtering hazardous
particles such as asbestos, officials with the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District said. Using your hand, shirt
or a scarf to shield your mouth and nose won't work either. N95-
rated masks are an affordable and effective option if fitted
properly.

Using damp cloths and spraying areas lightly with water.

Wetting down asbestos-containing materials is a common way to
prevent fibers from becoming airborne. Officials urge to use the
minimum amount of water to avoid overtaxing runoff systems.

Removing ash using vacuums with HEPA filters.

Using a negative-pressure enclosure vacuum system with a high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter keeps asbestos from
becoming airborne. If you do not have access to these tools, it is
best to leave cleanup to abatement professionals.

Avoiding any skin contact. Officials highly recommend wearing
gloves, pants and long-sleeved shirts to avoid skin contact with
the ash. Burning certain plastics such as PVC can release dioxins,
a known human carcinogen that can penetrate the skin through smoke
and dust. While asbestos fibers cannot penetrate the skin, they
can attach to skin or clothes, potentially leading to secondhand
exposure away from the cleanup site.

Additionally, health officials said anyone with heart or lung
problems should not be involved with ash cleanup.

Asbestos Concerns from Wildfires Are Nothing New

The Thomas Fire currently ranks as the eighth most destructive
wildfire in California history.

And while that ranking may rise until the fire is fully contained,
the destruction likely won't reach that of the Tubbs Fire, which
ravaged Sonoma County in October.

Tubbs covered just 36,807 acres, a fraction of Thomas' 238,500
acres -- but destroyed nearly six times as many structures.
The more than 5,600 structures wiped out by Tubbs were nearly
twice as many as the No. 2 ranked Tunnel Fire, which devastated
Oakland Hills in Northern California 26 years earlier.

And Tubbs was just one of several fires that tore through Northern
California in October, covering more than 245,000 total acres.
After the fires were contained, the focus then turned to concern
over cleanup efforts.

At least three counties declared a state of emergency over the
hazardous waste from the fires.

"Just think of all the hazardous materials in your home," Dr.
Karen Relucio, chief public health officer in Napa County, told
the New York Times. "Your chemicals, your pesticides, propane,
gasoline, plastic and paint  it all burns down into the ash. It
concentrates in the ash, and it's toxic."

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is in charge
of evaluating and removing the most hazardous debris at a cleanup
site, including asbestos materials.

Older homes destroyed by the fires may contain asbestos siding,
shingles or pipe insulation. Asbestos was a key ingredient in
virtually every kind of construction material until 1979, when
health concerns brought regulation of the toxic mineral.

"Overall, air quality is just as bad as the damage, if not worse,
and it's affecting more people than the actual fire itself,"
Conway said. "And add in the fact of possible asbestos in it, and
the pollution is all the more concerning."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Call for Asbestos Ban in Indonesia
----------------------------------------------------------
The Nation News reported that the symptoms were mild and seemingly
innocuous at first: mostly coughing and fatigue. But it wasn't
long before Sriyono got a grim diagnosis - he had asbestosis - an
incurable scarring of the lungs that often leads to cancer. It was
caused by decades of inhaling asbestos fibres at the factory where
the 44-year-old still works outside the sprawling capital Jakarta.
"There was a feeling of shock," said the rail-thin Sriyono, who
like many Indonesians goes by one name.

"There was no information telling us that asbestos could cause
diseases like cancer when I got into the industry," he told AFP.
The soft-spoken father of three is the first person to win
compensation for exposure to asbestos in Southeast Asia's biggest
economy - one of the world's top consumers of a toxic material
blamed for more than 100,000 annual deaths globally.

He was awarded 57 million rupiah ($4,200) by the government this
year, and he may not be the last: a local NGO is pushing for
compensation in 15 similar cases.

Asbestos fibres that lodge in the lungs can cause diseases
including lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, according to
the World Health Organization (WHO).

Banned in more than 60 countries, including all members of the EU,
the carcinogenic material is still widely used in developing
countries for construction, textiles, brake pads and cheap
insulation.

Canada, once the world's top producer of asbestos, announced a ban
last year, but some other countries, including Russia and India,
have resisted global efforts to outlaw it. And asbestos use shows
no sign of waning in Asia's emerging economies, said Ken
Takahashi, director of the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute
(ADRI) at the University of Sydney.

"The consumption in these countries remains at a very high level,
exposing many workers and, eventually, as they go into the market
and community there is the potential to expose the general
population as well," he said.

Asia now accounts for more than 60 percent of world asbestos
consumption.

Indonesia's use of the material grew by nearly six times from 1990
through 2012 when it peaked at an all-time high of 161,823 metric
tons before slipping back to 109,000 metric tons in 2014,
according to the latest data from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS).

For years, Sriyono toiled away producing gland packing, which uses
asbestos to seal systems such as pumps and shafts. He was never
warned his health was at risk and did not wear safety equipment
that could have kept him safe.

This limited awareness about the health hazards of asbestos is
typical across the archipelago nation of more than 17,000 islands,
while poor work safety standards compound the problem, health
experts said.

"They let people use it and that means that people don't think it
is dangerous," said Dr Anna Suraya, from the Occupational Doctors
Association of Indonesia.

There are no definitive figures on the number of Indonesian
workers directly exposed to asbestos.

The Indonesia Asbestos Ban Network (INA-BAN) estimates at least
4,000 people are directly involved in the manufacturing of
asbestos products, but that does not include contract and other
non-permanent employees or construction workers.

It also does not take into account the risk of secondary exposure
among workers' families as people can bring asbestos fibres home
with them on their hands, hair, clothes, shoes or on tools.

Nearly 180 Indonesian companies import asbestos either as a raw
material or finished product.

Because it is cheap and durable, the national statistics agency
estimates asbestos is found in about 10 percent of all homes for
roofing. It can also be found in schools, markets and even
hospitals, activists say.

Indonesia has taken some steps to minimise the impact with
exposure limits and work safety regulations, but enforcement is
haphazard and medical expertise in detecting asbestos-related
disease remains low.

Jakarta, however, is not mulling an outright ban, saying it's
focusing instead on getting the word out about the health risks.

"We've already started awareness-raising programmes, but of course
Indonesia is very big and we have to do it gradually," said
Kartini Rustandi, director of occupational health and sports at
the ministry of health.

That worries some who warn that Indonesia is a public health time
bomb and could suffer the fate of some developed nations that are
awash in asbestos-related lawsuits.

Rian Irawan from INA-BAN said: "We have to join the asbestos ban
now."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Court Opened in Montana
--------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that the state of Montana is among the
worst in the nation for the number of mesothelioma and asbestos-
related deaths and illnesses. This is a direct result of an
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mine that operated in the Libby,
Montana area beginning in 1919, spreading thousands of tons of the
carcinogenic material into the region's environment on a daily
basis. Though the mine was shut down and the Environmental
Protection Agency has been working to clean up the area for years,
the residual effects of the asbestos remain, and there are
hundreds of asbestos lawsuits waiting to be heard. As a result,
the Montana Supreme Court has ordered than a special Asbestos
Claims Court be established to expedite and facilitate the hearing
of all of these cases.

In anticipation of all of the mesothelioma and asbestos personal
injury and wrongful death claims that would be filed, the Montana
state legislature passed a law called the Asbestos Claims Court
Act in 2001. This was designed to create the special court.
However, when the law was passed it did not provide funding for
the court's operations, and the issue was further clouded by the
fact that the principal defendant in the cases was in the midst of
bankruptcy proceedings. With the superior court's order, the
special court's funding will be sought for the year 2019, at which
point it is expected that it may hear as many as a thousand cases.

Speaking of the importance of the special asbestos court, District
Judge Amy Eddy said, "It's an enormous responsibility, but
resolution needs to be brought to these cases. It would be
devastating to the judicial resources, which are severely
underfunded, if they were to be litigated on an individual basis."

Though the majority of the mesothelioma and asbestosis that has
been diagnosed in Montana was a direct result of the actions of W.
R. Grace and Co., the organization is under bankruptcy protection,
and are now handled through an asbestos trust fund that the
company established in 2014. The anticipated defendants in the new
court will be the state of Montana and companies that supported
the actions of W.R. Grace, and Co., as well as a few other
asbestos companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dangers Highlighted in Farmer's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
FarmingUK reported that 91-year-old Robert Seymour from Ringwood,
Hampshire inhaled the dangerous material while building pig stys
and roofs between 1958 and 1988.

He later developed malignant mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer
that affects the thin lining of the body's internal organs.

He died in his home this year on August 13. Winchester Coroner's
Court heard that Mr Seymour worked on his parents farm, and then
eventually working as a pig farmer on his own land.

Central Hampshire coroner Grahame Short recorded a conclusion of
industrial disease.

Asbestos-related diseases are caused by breathing in asbestos
fibres. These microscopic particles are released into the air when
asbestos is disturbed or damaged. If inhaled, the fibres become
trapped in the lungs and over long periods of time, can cause
inflammation, scarring and disease.

There are 6 types of asbestos. White asbestos, also known as
chrysotile, is the most common type found on farms.

How to spot white asbestos

White asbestos is light grey. Most farms carry out some building
work, from dismantling and re-erecting entire buildings to dealing
with asbestos. All such work involves risks and you must put
proper controls into place.

You may find white asbestos: mixed with blue or brown asbestos as
pipe or boiler insulation; in panels between wallboards; in the
brake linings of old vehicles; in corrugated roofing and cladding;
in rainwater pipes and gutters; and flaking or powdering on
damaged or worn surfaces could be a sign that the material
contains asbestos. This is known as asbestos containing material
(ACM).

You may expose or disturb asbestos fibres when you repair or
replace mechanical parts, like clutch or brake linings on an old
vehicle; remove or work on hot water systems with insulated pipes
or boilers; drill or saw roof or wall panels, for example if you
rewire or install fans or heaters; demolish buildings, roofs or
walls built before 2000; and drill, cut or break asbestos cement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA File Open for Asbestos Disposal in County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Danaher of The Clare Champion reported that the environmental
protection agency has revealed that a file concerning Clare County
Council's disposal of asbestos-containing wastes at a number of
West Clare sites remains open, pending further local authority
works.

Clare councillors passed the 2018 Budget Estimates recently, in
the knowledge that the council was still not able to make a
financial provision for the cost of properly disposing of
asbestos-cement materials from six unauthorised sites in Kilkee
and three in Kilrush.

Estimates vary from EUR1.5 to EUR3.3 million for the disposal of
material, which was first reported to the local authority by
Kilkee resident PJ Linnane in June 2013.

It is understood that the exact cost will depend on whether the
council has to remove all this material or whether it is allowed
to remediate the different sites.

Asbestos waste material disposal is governed by legal requirements
and the requirements of the HSA and the EPA.

Responding to Clare Champion queries, the EPA outlined that it has
a role under Section 63 of the EPA Act 1992 in ensuring that local
authorities perform their statutory functions.

Section 63 of the 1992 EPA Act states that, where the agency is of
the opinion that a local authority has failed to perform a
statutory function of that authority in relation to environmental
protection, or has performed that function in an unsatisfactory
manner, it may request a report within a specified period from the
authority in relation to the matter and the local authority has to
comply with the request.

The agency states that it has a file open under Section 63 in
relation to the disposal of asbestos-containing wastes at a number
of sites in Clare.

"Clare County Council has made progress in identifying and taking
interim measures to make safe the affected sites, pending action
to close out the matter.

"The EPA will continue to assess progress and will close the file,
when we are satisfied that the local authority has performed its
statutory functions appropriately," said an EPA spokeswoman.

The council recently stated that it has been working in
cooperation with the EPA, HSA and the HSE, since attention was
brought by a member of the public to the presence of asbestos at a
number of sites in West Clare.

"A phased approach has been taken to include detailed assessment,
analysis and investigation by experts.

"Site investigation works were completed earlier this year and
risk assessments carried out, the results of which have been
notified to the EPA.

"Work to secure the sites was carried out in consultation with the
HSE, to ensure that there was no risk to public safety.

"The council will be in a position to estimate costs in relation
to the works, when agreement has been reached with the relevant
state agencies.

"The council complied with the Section 63 Notice issued by the EPA
in March this year, which requested an information update,"
concluded the council spokesman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Snags $64.1MM Win Against Reinsurer
----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore of Law360 reported that a New York federal court
entered a $64.1 million judgment against Fireman's Fund Insurance
Co. after a jury found the reinsurer should have helped cover
client Utica Mutual Insurance Co.'s payout to Goulds Pumps for
asbestos liabilities.

Utica Mutual was seeking repayment for a 2007 settlement with
Goulds Pumps Inc. over both primary and umbrella policies in
effect from 1966 to 1973, and Utica's reinsurance with FFIC in
effect from 1966 to 1972. When Goulds was hit with bodily injury
claims over the asbestos-containing gaskets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Dies of Heart Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Moody of Burton Mail reported that an 87-year-old Stapenhill
man with deteriorating health who had spent years exposed to
asbestos at the former Drakelow Power Station died after a hip
operation following a fall.

Victor Teasel, of Waterside, died in Burton's Queen's Hospital on
September 27 after undergoing the operation, an inquest heard.
The 87-year-old had suffered a fall at his home on September 23
and was found by his wife, who put him to bed.

But it was spotted that his right leg looked longer than his left
and he was taken to hospital where it was discovered that he had
suffered a fracture to his right hip.

After undergoing the operation, Mr Teasel's health deteriorated
and he died in hospital.

The inquest, held at Burton Town Hall, was told how Mr Teasel had
worked at Drakelow Power Station for a number of years as a boiler
worker who put asbestos materials on the walls.

He had also had a heart bypass nine years previously and had been
a smoker up until the heart operation.

Dr Peter Acland, consultant pathologist based in Birmingham,
carried out a post-mortem on Mr Teasel and found he had severe
heart disease and a degree of blockage around his heart. It was
also enlarged and vulnerable.

The surgery, which was necessary, would have put extra strain on
his system. He also had calcific pleural plaques on both sides of
his chest due to exposure to asbestos but they were benign.

South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said: "Mr Teasel was 87
years old when he died and during his working life he spent a
number of years with boilers at a power station. He was exposed to
asbestos dust during that employment.

"His health was deteriorating and he was subject to falls. On
September 23 he fell getting out of bed and broke his right hip.
The surgery needed to proceed as soon as possible and it goes
ahead on September 24. It went quite well.

"On September 27 his health started to deteriorate and he died
that day."

Mr Haigh said that Mr Teasel died from ischemic heart disease due
to post hemiarthroplasty of the right hip and calcific pleural
plaques. He ruled accidental death.




                             *********


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  * * *