CAR_Public/180105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, January 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 5



                            Headlines

20-20 COMMUNICATIONS: Briefs in "Jennings" Appeal Due March 26
ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
ALIBABA GROUP: 2d Cir. Vacates Dismissal of IPO Class Suit
ALLAN SPEAR CONSTRUCTION: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Jordan" Suit
ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Eye-drop Price Rigging
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN CENTURY: Court Certifies Class in "Wildman" ERISA Suit
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Faces Suit in Miss. Over RICO Violations

APPLE INC: Intentionally Throttled Older Phones, Tandel Says
APPLE INC: Rosalia-Goodrich Sue over Older Phones' Performance
ARIZONA: Bid for Class Certification in "Valenzuela" Partly OK'd
ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Martin Appeals Opinion & Order to 2nd Circuit
BAYER AG: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Farar" Suit

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Roseman" Suit in New Jersey
BEHR PROCESS: "Brock" Suit Alleges Warranty Act Violations
BIZLENDER LLC: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs. CANG
CHAVIN GROUP: "Lin" Action Seeks Overtime, Tips, Paystubs

CIOX HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Consumer Fraud Act Violations
CIVIL SERVICE: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Medford" Suit
COMCAST CORP: Wins Bid to Strike "Santangelo" Class Claims
COMMERCE BANK: Van Gorp Files Appeal in Eighth Circuit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in E.D. New York

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bergman" Suit in District of Arizona
CREDICO (USA): Vasto Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
CVK RESTAURANT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Court Won't Stay "Kilby" Pending "Reed" Ruling
DALLAS, TX: "Bass" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

DCI CREDIT: Faces "Flemmer" Suit in District of North Dakota
DEVRY EDUCATION: Pension Trust Fund Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
DIRECTV LLC: Mey Files Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
E.J. LANDRIGAN: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
EAST 53RD STREET: "Villa" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations

EMERSON ELECTRIC: 8th Circuit Appeal Launched in "Hale" Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Faces ANECA Federal Credit Union Suit in N.D. Ga.
EQUIFAX INC: Face Heritage Federal Credit Suit in N.D. of Ga.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Washington Gas Light Suit in N.D. Georgia
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Suit

ES KLUFT: "Abbott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EUROPLUS MOTORSPORTS: Barnett Sues Over Overpriced Car Cost
FINANCIAL CREDIT: Faces "Carroll" Suit in C.D. of California
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit in S.D. of New York
FINISAR CORP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Securities Suit

FIVE GUYS: "Finefrock" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
G & J READY: Faces "Penafiel" Suit in Eastern District New York
GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Appeal in A&M Suit Underway
GENERAL MOTORS: Jan. 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Sloan" Suit
GEO GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Chen" Unpaid Wages Suit

GF MANAGEMENT: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn.
GIGA WATT: Faces Storms Media LLC Suit in E.D. of Washington
GIGAMON INC: Bushansky Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
GMAC INC: Judgment in Dupreez Operative Counterclaim Affirmed
GSSD INVESTMENT: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime, Lost Wages

HABANA TO GO: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. New York
HERSHEY CO: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
HORNAK INC: "Magee" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
HUNTINGTON LEARNING: Faces "Dhade" Suit in District of Delaware
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coats" Suit in Central District Calif.

ICAN BENEFIT: "Ezenwa" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
INTEGRITY HOME: Court Needs More Info on "Cooper" Class Deal
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Goldman" Suit in E.D. New York
JENNY & RICHARD'S: Fan Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Order in "Goldemberg" Suit

KATANGA MINING: Faces "Davis" Securities Class Suit in New Jersey
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Appeal in "Polito" Dismissed
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Precise Leads Must Produce Discovery Docs
LITHIA MOTORS: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Clayborne" Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Allows SPL to Rejoin Tax Exemptions Suit

MAJOR LEAGUE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Payne" Suit
MARATHON OIL: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MBF LEASING: Settlement in RICO Suit Has Final Approval
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Eastern District New York
MDL 2541: $209MM Antitrust Class Settlement Has Final Nod

MDL 2541: $42M Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2800: "Brumfield" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Johnson" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Klein" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Sievers" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MERCEDES BENZ: 3d Cir. Affirms Denial of "Luppino" Class Cert
MERIBEAR PRODUCTIONS: "Nunez" Suit Alleges Labor Violations
METSUYAN BLUE: "Sotero" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Lucas Says
MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fowler-Harris Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Knight Files Appeal in 3rd Circuit
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: "Pugh" Discrimination Suit Junked
MOORE GROUP: Faces "Porter" Suit in Eastern District New York
NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Combs" Suit in S.D. of Ohio
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Sued by Lamey Over Collection of Student Loans

NBTY INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez" Suit
NEW ENGLAND AUTO: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Gamble"
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. of New York
NOVITEX ENTERPRISE: Knights Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
OAK RIVER: "Shelby" Suit Remains in Missouri District Court

OPEN DOOR: Brief in "Jennings" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Mar. 26
OSF HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended "Smith" Suit
PACIFIC GAS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
PENGUIN TRADING: "Buso" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
PLANO MOLDING: Faces "Thome" Suit over Use of Biometric Info

PREFERRED INSULATION: "Arnold" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Huffman"
RAPID ARMORED: Faces "Gallimore" Suit in E.D. of New York
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Borecki"
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Denton" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations

SAINT-GOBAIN: Court Narrows Claims in "Brown" Contamination Suit
SAN JOSE, CA: Court Decertifies Class in "Wallace" Labor Suit
SARMA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
SCHURMAN FINE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
SECURITY NATIONAL: Faces Gregory Haskin Suit in S.D. Florida

SH RESTAURANT: "Scotland" Suit Seeks Damages
SHAMROCK ALLIANCE: Jobes Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SIDNEY GARBER JEWELERS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. of New York
SIGNET GROUP: Faces "Chavez" Suit in Southern District of Cal.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Dept. of Corrections Faces "Lamb" Suit

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Levitt-Malone Case
SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
STEVENS TANKER: Summary Judgment Bid in "Espinosa" Suit Denied
TANDOORI NORTH: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY

TJX COMPANIES: $8.5MM Settlement in "Chester" Suit Has Prelim OK
TRANSAM TRUCKING: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fox et al. Suit
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Court Consolidates Two Securities Suits
UK CLEANERS: "Camano" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
UNITED STATES: 66 Upstream Cases Consolidated Under 17-9001L

UNITED STATES: 86 Upstream Cases Consolidated Under 17-9002L
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Camesi et al. File Appeal in 3rd Cir.
US XPRESS: Morgan Files Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
VEP HEALTHCARE: "Hunt" Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval
VOLVO CARS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Sues Over Un-refunded Sales Tax
WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Weekly Wages, "Meynard" Suit Says
XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses "Csoka" Derivative Suit
XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses "Feiser" Derivative Suit


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Resulted from Single Occurrence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Casey" Raised to Missouri Supreme Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms Judgment vs. John Crane
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Reverses Judgment vs. Bechtel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of 2 MARDOC Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Metropolitan Life Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $602MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 22 Cases at Oct. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 334 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $324MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4BB Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 15,179 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metlife Unit Had 2,742 New Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,603 Pending Claims at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.6MM Accrued Liability at Sept. 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 32,760 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Review Asbestos Removal Initiatives
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Legal Battle vs Demolition Co
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Cabinet Relaxes Asbestos Uses Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife's Lung Cancer Caused By Husband's Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Pipes Vandalism Concerns Municipality
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Council Awaits Verdict on Asbestos Mess
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Pushes for Best Fin'l Compensation Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Agency Pushes for Asbestos ID, Monitoring
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Appeals for Info on Mom's Mesothelioma Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ace Hardware Sued by Couple for Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Producer Brazil Bans Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation Company Exposed Workers to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From $1.47-Mil. Asbestos Penalty Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Doctor's Office Renovation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Results Confirm Asbestos Hotel Rubble
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Insulated House Risk Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pays $200K as Asbestos Abatement Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Fails to Penalize Company Dumping Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grand Jury Subpoenaes Asbestos Removal Subcon

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in High-Rise for Senior Citizens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Reveals Tremolite Asbestos in Make-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Trust Fund Exhausted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Voices Concern of Asbestos in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital's Asbestos Management Criticized

ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Crashed Tests Positive of Asbestos


                            *********


20-20 COMMUNICATIONS: Briefs in "Jennings" Appeal Due March 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIKWANA JENNINGS and LISA DRAKE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Appellees, v. 20/20
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., erroneously sued as 2020 Companies LLC;
OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC; LARRY DALE CLARK; and JERRIMY FARRIS,
Case No. 17-17481 (9th Cir, Dec. 14, 2017), is an appeal filed
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No. 15-cv-
04080-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2017).

Mediation Questionnaire was due Dec. 21, 2017. Transcript ordered
is due by Jan. 16, 2018. Transcript is due Feb. 14, 2018.

Appellant 20/20 Communications's opening brief is due Mar. 26,
2018. Appellees Lisa Drake and Shikwana Jennings' answering brief
is due Apr. 26, 2018. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21
days after service of the answering brief.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellees:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800

Attorneys for 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.:

          Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071


ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Estella Lynn Trammell, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AccentCare, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01129
(W.D. Tex., November 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Estella Lynn Trammell is an individual who resides in
Rosanky, Bastrop County, Texas. She has been employed by
Defendant as a field specialist since January 1997.

Defendant is a nationwide home healthcare provider, with more
than 19,000 qualified professionals in over 140 offices.
Defendant provides a full spectrum of care, including skilled
home healthcare services, personal care services, private duty
nursing, hospice/end of life care, and care management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Commissioners House at
      Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com
              edmond@morelandlaw.com


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aimbridge
Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Gertrude Mae Flynn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01649-JFC (W.D. Penn., December 20, 2017).

Aimbridge Hospitality is one of the nation's leading independent
hotel investment and management firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


ALIBABA GROUP: 2d Cir. Vacates Dismissal of IPO Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
District Court's dismissal of the case, CHRISTINE ASIA CO. LTD.,
TAI WILLIAM, ABEL AMOROS, ARTHUR GABRIEL, RAYMOND LEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellants, GANG LIU, Movant-Appellant, v. JACK YUN MA,
JOSEPH C. TSAI, JONATHAN ZHAOXI LU, MAGGIE WEI WU, ALIBABA GROUP
HOLDING LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-2519-cv (2d
Cir.) and remanded for further proceedings.

The Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing their
class action complaint on behalf of all those who purchased
American Depository Shares ("ADSs") or call options to purchase
ADSs of Alibaba between Sept. 19, 2014, and Jan. 29, 2015.  They
sued the Defendants for securities fraud in connection with
Alibaba's initial public offering ("IPO") of its securities, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  The District Court dismissed the
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), ruling that it failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Considering all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, The
Appellate Court holds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead strong
circumstantial evidence of scienter.  The July 16, 2014 secret
meeting conducted by SAIC was attended by high level Alibaba
officers, including Chief Risk Officer (and Alibaba Partner)
Xiaofeng Shao, as well as senior managers of each of Alibaba's
primary business units.  The complaint alleges that the managers
of Alibaba's business units who attended the meeting reported
directly to the Defendants Lu or Wu.  Considering the high-level
nature of the meeting, the seniority of the attendees, its
conduct in secret, and the huge potential impact of the SAIC's
threat made at the meeting on Alibaba and its imminent IPO, it is
virtually inconceivable that the threat was not communicated to
the senior level of Alibaba's management, i.e. the Individual
Defendants.

In addition, the Defendants' subsequent failure to disclose the
meeting concealed the true facts about the threat to the company
that had been communicated by the government of China.  This
omission rises to at least a reckless disregard of a known or
obvious duty to disclose, Indiana Public Retirement System, and
thus powerfully supports a strong inference that the Defendants
acted with scienter.  The Individual Defendants' mental states
are imputed to Alibaba, and therefore the complaint also
adequately pleads scienter for Alibaba.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of
the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/30IW4I from Leagle.com.

ROBERT K. KRY -- rkry@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, ( Sarah
J. Newman -- snewman@mololamken.com -- on the brief), Washington,
DC., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
(on the brief), New York, NY., for Movant-Appellant.

JAMES G. KREISSMAN -- jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher &
Bartlett LLP, (Simona G. Strauss -- sstrauss@stblaw.com --
Stephen P. Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- on the brief), Palo
Alto, CA, (Jonathan K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- on
the brief), New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees.


ALLAN SPEAR CONSTRUCTION: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eblin Matute Mendoza, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allan Spear Construction, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-16951 (E.D. La., December 11, 2017),
seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allan Spear is a concrete and masonry contractor that specializes
in foundations, slabs, tilt wall, elevated floor systems and
other types of concrete and masonry projects. Plaintiff worked as
a manual laborer assigned at their project at the Veterans
Affairs Hospital in New Orleans, Louisiana, mixing and pouring
concrete for driveways and sidewalks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
             whb@beaumontcostales.com
             eaw@beaumontcostales.com


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Jordan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROLANDO JORDAN, RONALD WARD, and KENNETH
ROLLINGCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, ALAN COOK, and
CHARLESHART, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-335-TLS (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied with leave to
refile the Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have substantially
burdened Muslim and Native American inmates' exercise of religion
in the Allen County Jail.  Plaintiff Jordan is Muslim and was an
inmate in Allen County Jail from January 2016 through August
2016.  Plaintiff Ward is also Muslim and was an inmate at the
Allen County Jail when the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class.
Plaintiff Rollingcloud is a Native American, practices a
traditional Native American faith, and was an inmate at the Allen
County Jail when the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class.
Defendant Gladieux is the Allen County Sheriff and operates the
Allen County Jail.  Defendant Cook is the current Commander of
the Allen County Jail, and Hart is a former Commander of the
Allen County Jail.

Broadly, the Plaintiffs assert that Muslim and Native American
inmates at the Allen County Jail are forbidden from gathering for
weekly communal worship, but Protestant Christian inmates are
permitted to do so.  Additionally, they contend that both Muslim
and Native American inmates are forbidden from possessing
articles of religious devotion, such as prayer rugs and religious
head coverings for Muslim inmates, and medicine bags and
religious headdress for Native American inmates.

They brought their claims on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated as members of the proposed class defines as
all individuals held at the Allen County Jail between October
2014 and September 2016 practicing a Muslim or traditional Native
American faith who have been forbidden from engaging in Muslim or
traditional Native American communal worship and/or have been
forbidden from keeping an article of Muslim or traditional Native
American religious devotion.

Judge Springmann holds that the evidence that shows five inmates
have allegedly been denied the ability to participate in regular
group worship and/or keep articles of religious devotion,
combined with the conclusory allegation in the complaint that
dozens of inmates have been denied the ability to participate in
regular group worship and/or keep articles of religious devotion,
does not satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).  She says perhaps the Plaintiffs
will uncover additional class members through discovery, but at
present, they have not submitted sufficient evidence to show that
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.

While the Judge suspects that the Plaintiffs have identified a
particular group of individuals harmed in a particular way during
a specific period in particular areas, she withholds this
determination given the numerosity concerns discussed.

Accordingly, Judge Springmann denied with leave to refile the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/abzdPo from Leagle.com.

Rolando Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Frank --
dfrank@myers-law.com -- Christopher C Myers & Associates.

Ronald Ward, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Frank, Christopher C
Myers & Associates.

Kenneth RollingCloud, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Frank,
Christopher C Myers & Associates.

David Gladieux, Sheriff, Defendant, represented by J. Spencer
Feighner -- jsf@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC & John O.
Feighner -- jfeighner@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC.

Alan Cook, Commander, Defendant, represented by J. Spencer
Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC & John O. Feighner, Haller & Colvin
PC.

Charles Hart, Defendant, represented by J. Spencer Feighner,
Haller & Colvin PC & John O. Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC.


ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Eye-drop Price Rigging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00766, (E.D. Tex., December 11, 2017),
seeks to recover threefold damages, interest, costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Allergan's
anticompetitive foreclosure of cyclosporine sales in violation of
the Sherman Act.

Restasis or cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion is a prescription
treatment for dry-eye disease.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. is a stock corporation duly
formed and existing under the New York Cooperative Corporations
Law with a principal place of business located at 50 Jet View
Drive, Rochester, New York 14624. Plaintiff purchased Restasis
directly from Defendant.

Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 559-9745
      Fax: (215) 875-5707
      Email: dwalker@bm.net

             - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Zachary Kaplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: dsorensen@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

             - and -

      Barry Taus, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      Miles Greaves, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (646) 873-7654
      Fax: (212) 931-0703
      Email: btaus@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
             mgreaves@tcllaw.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianceone
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled James Pinkney, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v
Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-07382 (E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2017).

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. operates as a debt
collection agency in the United States.[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


AMERICAN CENTURY: Court Certifies Class in "Wildman" ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE WILDMAN and JON BORCHERDING, Individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN CENTURY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:16-CV-00737-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western
Division, granted the  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and denied the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' reply
brief.

The putative class action involves claims for breach of fiduciary
duty brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  American Century makes the American
Century Retirement Plan available to its eligible employees and
the employees of its affiliates.  The Plan is a defined
contribution 401(k) plan that allows participants to contribute a
percentage of their pre-tax earnings and invest those
contributions among different investment options.

Plaintiffs Wildman and Borcherding are former American Century
employees.  Wildman has participated in the Plan from 2005 to the
present day. Borcherding participated in the Plan from 1996 until
2012.  The Plaintiffs assert approximately 2,000 to 2,500 people
participated in the Plan from June 30, 2010, to the present day.
The American Century Retirement Plan Retirement Committee is
responsible for selecting, retaining, and reviewing the
investment options in the Plan and overseeing the Plan's
investment and administrative expenses.

The Plaintiffs filed the ERISA lawsuit on June 30, 2016.  In
their Amended Complaint, they assert five counts pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and (3) on behalf of the Plan.  Count I
asserts the Defendants breached their duties of loyalty and
prudence in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B).
Count II alleges the Defendants failed to monitor the Committee
and Committee members.  Counts III and IV allege the Defendants
engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1106(a)(1) and (b).  Count V is a claim for other
equitable relief based on ill-gotten proceeds recoverable under
29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3).

The Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Plan, causing the Plan to suffer losses.  Specifically,
they believe the Defendants selected and retained proprietary
funds, despite their high cost and poor performance, in order to
further the self-interest of American Century.  They also allege
the Defendants acted disloyally by not capturing revenue-sharing
payments and by failing to promptly convert certain funds' shares
to a lower-cost share class.  In addition, the Plaintiffs contend
the Defendants caused the Plan to pay unreasonable recordkeeping
fees because they failed to negotiate the existing contract or
put the service up for competitive bidding.

The Plaintiffs propose defining the class as all participants and
beneficiaries of the American Century Retirement Plan at the time
on or after June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 27, 2017, the Court granted in part, the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment because Wildman and Borcherding's
claims were partially barred by a release they signed when they
were laid off from American Century.  The Court found the release
of claims was valid as to Borcherding's claims that arose on or
before July 19, 2012, but not Wildman's.

Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
Reply, the Plaintiffs' Notices of Supplemental Authority, and the
Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental
Authority.

Judge Kays finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) factors and the requirements under Rule 23(b)(1).
Therefore, he will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Judge also finds it appropriate to deny the Defendants'
motion to strike.  First, he finds nothing in the Plaintiffs'
reply brief that strays beyond the points raised in its opening
brief.  The Plaintiffs crafted their reply brief in direct
response to the points raised in the Defendants' brief in
opposition.  As to the expert report and declarations, the
Defendants' brief in opposition relies almost exclusively on the
Plaintiffs' lack of evidentiary support for their motion and it
appears they submitted these additional documents to rebut the
Defendants' arguments.

The Judge limits his use of the Pomerantz report and the
additional declarations of the Named Plaintiffs for rebutting the
arguments raised in the Defendants' brief in opposition only.  He
will deny the Defendants' motion to strike the declarations
attached to the Plaintiffs' reply brief or in the alternative,
the reply brief.

For the reasons stated, Judge Kays denied the Defendants' motion
to strike the Plaintiffs' reply brief and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class action.

He certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1) defined as al
participants and beneficiaries of the American Century Retirement
Plan at the time on or after June 30, 2010, excluding the
Defendants, employees with responsibility for the Plan's
investment or administrative functions, and members of the
American Century Services, LLC Board of Directors.

He appointed the Named Plaintiffs as the class representatives,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP as the class counsel, and Brady and
Associates, LLP as the local counsel.

Judge Kays directed that the parties meet and confer regarding a
trial date for the case.  They should file an amended proposed
scheduling order setting a trial date on or before Jan. 5, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZeJFEf from Leagle.com.

Steve Wildman, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the American Century
Retirement Plan,, Plaintiff, represented by Brock J. Specht --
bspecht@nka.com -- pro hac vice.

Steve Wildman, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the American Century
Retirement Plan,, Plaintiff, represented by James H. Kaster, pro
hac vice, Jennifer K. Lee -- jlee@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, pro
hac vice, Michael F. Brady -- brady@mbradylaw.com -- Brady and
Associates, Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, pro hac vice, Carl F. Engstrom --
cengstrom@nka.com -- pro hac vice, Jacob T. Schutz --
jschutz@nka.com -- pro hac vice, Kai H. Richter --
krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice & Mark A.
Kistler -- mkistler@mbradylaw.com -- Brady and Associates.

Jon Borcherding, individually and as representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the American
Century Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Brock J.
Specht, pro hac vice, James H. Kaster, pro hac vice, Michael F.
Brady, Brady and Associates, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, pro hac vice, Carl F. Engstrom, pro hac vice,
Jacob T. Schutz, pro hac vice, Jennifer K. Lee, Nichols Kaster,
Kai H. Richter, Nichols Kaster PLLP, pro hac vice & Mark A.
Kistler, Brady and Associates.

American Century Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul
Nemser -- pnemser@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Samuel J. Rubin -- srubin@goodwinlaw.com -- W. Perry Brandt
-- perry.brandt@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V.
Douglass -- adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro
hac vice, Dave Rosenberg -- drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James O. Fleckner --
jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

American Century Retirement Plan Retirement Committee, Defendant,
represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V.
Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

American Century Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
Nemser, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W.
Perry Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice.

Christopher Bouffard, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry
Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice &
James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Bradley C Cloverdyke, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry
Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice &
James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

John A Leis, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James
O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Tina S Ussery-Franklin, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry
Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice &
James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret E Van Wagoner, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & Samuel J. Rubin. Samuel J
Rubin

Margaret E Van Wagoner, Defendant, represented by W. Perry
Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice &
James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Gudrun S Neumann, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James
O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Julie A Smith, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James
O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Margie A Morrison, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James
O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

John Does 1-20, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac
vice, Dave Rosenberg, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James
O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

American Century Investment Management, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt, Bryan Cave, LLP, Alison V.
Douglass, Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Dave Rosenberg,
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice.

Chat Cowherd, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP.

Diane Gallagher, Defendant, represented by Paul Nemser, Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Rubin, W. Perry Brandt,
Bryan Cave, LLP & James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter LLP.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Faces Suit in Miss. Over RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center, Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc., and Monroe County Healthcare Authority, dba
Monroe County Hospital, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00145 (S.D. Miss., November 30, 2017), seeks to
recover monetary losses under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs bring the civil action as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair marketing
and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

Plaintiff Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc., is a private non-
profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Alabama, with its principal place of business in Alabama.

Plaintiff Monroe County Healthcare Authority, dba Monroe County
Hospital, is a public corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Alabama, with its principal place of business in
Alabama.

Plaintiff Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center is a
public non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Mississippi, with its principal place of business in
Mississippi.

The Defendants are manufacturers and wholesale distributors of
prescription opioids. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
      Richard Barrett, Esq.
      Sterling Starns, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927
      404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Tel: (662) 834-2488
      Fax: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
              dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
              rrb@rrblawfirm.net
              sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com

          - and -

      Steven A. Martino, Esq.
      W. Lloyd Copeland, Esq.
      TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
      P.O. Box 894
      Mobile, AL 36601
      Tel: (251) 433-3131
      Fax: (251) 433-4207
      E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com
              Lloyed@taylormartino.com


APPLE INC: Intentionally Throttled Older Phones, Tandel Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA TANDEL, for herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California Corp. and DOES l -
200, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV05874 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 26, 2017), seeks to recover restitution/disgorgement of
revenues, earnings, profits, compensation and benefits that Apple
obtained as a result of the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business acts or practices.

Plaintiff and Class members purchased various Apple iPhone models
during the four years immediately preceding the filing of this
Complaint, including without limitation the iPhone 6, iPhone 6s,
iPhone SE, and/or iPhone 7 models. Apple intentionally
"throttled," i.e., slowed down and degraded, the performance of
various Apple iPhone models purchased by and belonging to
Plaintiff and Class members, including 'without limitation the
iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone SE, and/or iPhone 7 models.

It was not until December 20 or 21, 2017, that Apple publicly
acknowledged and admitted that it intentionally slowed down and
degraded the performance of various Apple iPhone models purchased
by and belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. Prior to
December 20 or 21, Plaintiff and Class members did not know that
Apple intentionally "throttled" the performance of various iPhone
models.

Apple never sought permission from Plaintiff or Class members
before it intentionally "throttled" the performance of iPhone
models purchased by and belonging to Plaintiff and Class members.

The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact and loss
of money or property as a direct result of Apple admitted,
intentional act of "throttling" the performance of Apple iPhone
models. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Withee, Esq.
          6175 Norfolk St.
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: 650 554 9150
          Facsimile: 650 403 0898
          E-mail: jay@jwitheelaw.com


APPLE INC: Rosalia-Goodrich Sue over Older Phones' Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERI ROSALIA and TANYA GOODRICH on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-
17-563342 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 26, 2017), seeks an order
directing Apple to:

     (a) modify its iOS in a manner that prevents the operating
system from slowing the performance of iPhones;

     (b) provide owners of iPhones with notice that the slow
performance of those devices is caused by modifications Apple
made to iOS;

     (c) reimburse current owners of iPhones with the purchase
price they paid for those devices after Apple knew, but failed to
disclose, the existence of the battery defect and the slow
performance caused by the iOS modification;

     (d) compensate current and form owners of iPhones for the
costs they incurred in attempting to repair or replace their
iPhones due to the battery defect and/or the slow performance
caused by the iOS modification;

     (d) provide current owners of iPhones with new batteries for
those devices free of charge; and

     (e) compensate former owners of iPhones for the cost of
replacing those devices prematurely or, alternatively, to provide
former owners with the opportunity to return their replacement
iPhones in exchange for a refund together with the model of
iPhone (with a new battery) that they owned prior to replacing,
that device.

Plaintiffs and Class Members have owned numerous versions of the
iPhones including the 4, 5, 6, 7 as well as the "S" and"+"
variants. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have noticed that
their older iPhone models slow down when new models come out.

On December 20, 2017, Defendants admitted to purposefully slowing
down older iPhone models. Plaintiffs and Class Members never
consented to allow Defendants to slow their iPhones. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and Class Members had
their phone slowed down, and thereby it interfered with
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' use or possession of their
iPhones, Plaintiffs and Class Members have otherwise suffered
damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
          Terence D. Edwards, Esq.
          THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
          354 Pine Street, Third Floor
          3 San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 989 1800
          Facsimile: (415) 989 1801


ARIZONA: Bid for Class Certification in "Valenzuela" Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Lucrecia Rivas Valenzuela, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Doug Ducey, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-16-03072-PHX-DGC
(D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.

Arizona law states that noncitizens may obtain Arizona driver's
licenses by presenting proof that their presence in the United
States is "authorized under federal law."  The Plaintiffs are
noncitizen residents of Arizona who have deferred action
designations from the federal government and who have been issued
Employment Authorization Documents ("EADs") from the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").  The Plaintiffs'
EADs are coded "(c)(14)" and authorize them to work in the United
States.

The Defendants' current policy requires (c)(14) EAD holders to
satisfy procedural requirements that other EAD holders need not
satisfy to obtain an Arizona driver's license.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the policy violates the Supremacy and Equal
Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  They seek to
represent a class of (c)(14) holders in Arizona.  They also seek
to represent holders of (a)(11) EADs who are prohibited entirely
from obtaining Arizona driver's licenses.

When the Plaintiffs filed the case in September 2016, the
Defendants' Policy 16.1.4 stated that EADs coded (a)(11),
(c)(14), or (c)(33) were insufficient to prove federally
authorized presence in the United States, while all other
categories of EADs were sufficient.  The Court and the Ninth
Circuit prohibited the Defendants from enforcing the policy with
respect to noncitizens possessing (c)(33) EADs pursuant to the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  The Plaintiffs
in the case seek similar declaratory and injunctive relief
prohibiting the Defendants from enforcing their policy with
respect to (c)(14) and (a)(11) EADs.

The relevant version of Policy 16.1.4 was issued in 2013 and
remained unchanged for several years.  In February 2017, in
response to questions from the Court at oral argument on another
motion in the case, the Defendants issued a revised version of
the policy.  The 2017 version, like the 2013 version, contains
section "S," which addresses certain categories of EADs.

Consistent with the rulings in the Dream Act case, the 2017
version eliminates any reference to (c)(33) EADs.  The policy
continues to provide, however, that (a)(11) EADs are unacceptable
as proof of authorized presence, and states that (c)(14) EAD
holders "may be eligible" for a driver's license or other
identification if they are a derivative of a self-petitioner
under the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") or have an
application pending for a visa or change of status.  To prove
that they fall into one of these categories, (c)(14) EAD holders
must present an acceptable document in addition to his or her
EAD, which "may include" a USCIS Notice of Action identifying the
EAD holder as a VAWA derivative or an I-918 petition for a U
nonimmigrant visa.  The Defendants' website adds that there may
be alternative forms of documentation sufficient to establish
authorized presence when accompanied with a C14 EAD.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) described as all noncitizens who are
being denied or will be denied the ability to present their EADs
as sufficient proof of federally authorized presence to obtain an
Arizona driver's license as a result of the Defendants' 2013 and
2017 policies and related practices pursuant to Executive Order
2012-06, Policy 16.1.4, and Policy 16.1.4's implementation.
Because the only classes of EAD holders who are denied the right
to obtain driver's licenses solely on the basis of their EADs are
(a)(11) and (c)(14) holders, those are the two categories that
would be included in the proposed class.

Judge Campbell finds that for several reasons, the Plaintiffs
cannot include (a)(11) EAD holders in their proposed class.
First, no Plaintiff holds an (a)(11) EAD.  As a result, no
Plaintiff has been injured by the Defendants' (a)(11) policy and
no Plaintiff has standing to challenge that policy.  Second, no
Plaintiff has a claim typical of an (a)(11) EAD holder's claim.
The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaint is that the Defendants
are imposing burdens on (c)(14) EAD holders in the form of
additional paperwork not required of other EAD holders.  This is
quite different from the complaint of (a)(11) EAD holders who are
barred entirely from obtaining licenses.  Third, no Plaintiff can
adequately represent (a)(11) EAD holders because no Plaintiff can
present an (a)(11) claim at trial.  For these reasons, he
concludes that (a)(11) EAD holders cannot be included in the
class.

At oral argument, the parties also suggested that there are
categories of (c)(14) EAD holders that are entirely barred from
obtaining licenses, but counsel were unable to provide any
specifics.  As the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23 and the
Defendants have not provided information that could be used to
exclude some (c)(14) holders from the class, the Judge will
include all of them at this stage.  If the parties provide more
information on the issue during summary judgment briefing, he
will have the ability to modify the class definition if
warranted.

For these reasons, Judge Campbell granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  He certified the class under
Rule 23(b)(2) defined as all noncitizens holding EADs coded
(c)(14) who are being denied or will be denied the ability to
present their EADs alone as sufficient proof of federally
authorized presence in order to obtain an Arizona driver's
license, as a result of the Defendants' 2013 and 2017 policies
and related practices pursuant to Executive Order 2012-06,
Arizona Department of Transportation ("ADOT") Policy 16.1.4, and
ADOT Policy 16.1.4's implementation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7cY6uD from Leagle.com.

Lucrecia Rivas Valenzuela, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro M.
Huerta, National Immigration Law Center.

Lucrecia Rivas Valenzuela, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R.
Ortega, Jr., Ortega Law Firm PC, Esther H. Sung -- sung@nilc.org
-- National Immigration Law Center, Jessica R. Hanson, National
Immigration Law Center, Julia Alejandra Gomez Hernandez, MALDEF,
Karen Cassandra Tumlin -- tumlin@nilc.org -- National Immigration
Law Center, Nicholas David Espiritu -- espiritu@nilc.org --
National Immigration Law Center, Nora A. Preciado --
preciado@nilc.org -- National Immigration Law Center & Tanya
Broder --     broder@nilc.org -- National Immigration Law Center.

Marcos Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro M. Huerta,
National Immigration Law Center, Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Ortega
Law Firm PC, Esther H. Sung, National Immigration Law Center,
Jessica R. Hanson, National Immigration Law Center, Julia
Alejandra Gomez Hernandez, MALDEF, Karen Cassandra Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center, Nicholas David Espiritu,
National Immigration Law Center, Nora A. Preciado, National
Immigration Law Center & Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law
Center.

Isabel Aceituno Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro M.
Huerta, National Immigration Law Center, Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.,
Ortega Law Firm PC, Esther H. Sung, National Immigration Law
Center, Jessica R. Hanson, National Immigration Law Center, Julia
Alejandra Gomez Hernandez, MALDEF, Karen Cassandra Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center, Nicholas David Espiritu,
National Immigration Law Center, Nora A. Preciado, National
Immigration Law Center & Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law
Center.

Araceli Franco Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro M.
Huerta, National Immigration Law Center, Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.,
Ortega Law Firm PC, Esther H. Sung, National Immigration Law
Center, Jessica R. Hanson, National Immigration Law Center, Julia
Alejandra Gomez Hernandez, MALDEF, Karen Cassandra Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center, Nicholas David Espiritu,
National Immigration Law Center, Nora A. Preciado, National
Immigration Law Center & Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law
Center.

Maria Del Carmen Palafox, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro M.
Huerta, National Immigration Law Center, Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.,
Ortega Law Firm PC, Esther H. Sung, National Immigration Law
Center, Jessica R. Hanson, National Immigration Law Center, Julia
Alejandra Gomez Hernandez, MALDEF, Karen Cassandra Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center, Nicholas David Espiritu,
National Immigration Law Center, Nora A. Preciado, National
Immigration Law Center & Tanya Broder, National Immigration Law
Center.

Doug Ducey, Governor of the State of Arizona, in his official
capacity, Defendant, represented by Doug C. Northup --
dnorthup@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig PC & Sean Thomas Hood --
shood@fclaw.com -- Fennemore Craig PC.

John S Halikowski, Director of the Arizona Department of
Transportation, in his official capacity, Defendant, represented
by Doug C. Northup, Fennemore Craig PC & Sean Thomas Hood,
Fennemore Craig PC.

Eric Jorgenson, Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the
Arizona Department of Transportation, in His official capacity,
Defendant, represented by Doug C. Northup, Fennemore Craig PC &
Sean Thomas Hood, Fennemore Craig PC.


ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Martin Appeals Opinion & Order to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jamie Martin and Daneisha Singleton filed an appeal
from a District Court opinion & order dated September 27, 2017,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Martin, et al. v. Assurance
Wireless, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-cv-5237, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for alleged failure to pay overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing wireless phones
and wireless phone service to consumers.

The appellate case is captioned as Martin v. Assurance Wireless,
LLC, Case No. 17-3877, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jamie Martin, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23
Class, and Daneisha Singleton, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23
Class, are represented by:

          Rachhana Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

Defendant-Appellee Wallace Morgan, Inc., is represented by:

          Joseph F. Tremiti, Esq.
          TREMITI LLC
          67 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 859-5059
          E-mail: jtremiti@tremitilaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Sprint/United Management Company, Inc., is
represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3410
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com

Defendant-Appellee Credico (USA) LLC is represented by:

          Gabrielle Levin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-3901
          E-mail: glevin@gibsondunn.com


BAYER AG: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Farar" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation and Bayer Healthcare, LLC,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ilana
Farar, et al. v. Bayer AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04601-WHO, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 12,
2017, Judge William H. Orrick granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, except their request for a nationwide class,
and denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring suit as individuals as well as on behalf of
a nationwide class and three statewide classes in California,
Florida, and New York.  They allege unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law on behalf of Ms. Farar and the California class,
among other allegations.

The appellate case is captioned as Ilana Farar, et al. v. Bayer
AG, et al., Case No. 17-80247, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ILANA FARAR, ANDREA LOPEZ and ROSANNE
COSGROVE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Amanda Marie Howell, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 307-5027
          E-mail: ahowell@stanleylawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 235-5306
          E-mail: mzevin@stanleylawgroup.com

Defendants-Petitioners BAYER AG, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER
HEALTHCARE, LLC, are represented by:

          Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          E-mail: rsandrock@sidley.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8110
          E-mail: jfcohn@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Roseman" Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Healthcare
LLC. The case is styled Gertrude Andrew Roseman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bayer
Healthcare LLC and Merck & Co., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-13308 (D. N.J., December 19, 2017).

Bayer HealthCare LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
healthcare and medical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BEHR PROCESS: "Brock" Suit Alleges Warranty Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Brock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Behr Process Corp., Behr Paint Corp., Masco Corp.,
The Home Depot, Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-12341 (D.N.J., December 1, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Act.

Plaintiff seek an order forcing Behr and Home Depot to stop their
deceptive conduct and to provide appropriate remuneration to
affected consumers.

Plaintiff Barry Brock is a resident of Morris County, and a
citizen of the State of New Jersey.

Defendants Behr Process Corporation and Behr Paint Corporation
manufacture interior house paints, exterior house paints,
decorative finishes, primers, stains and surface preparation
products sold exclusively at the Home Depot.

Defendant Masco Corporation acquired Behr Process Corporation in
1999. Masco conducts Behr-oriented marketing and sales operations
in Santa Ana, California.

Defendant The Home Depot, Inc. or Home Depot is an American home
improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools,
construction products, and services. The company is headquartered
in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Weinkowitz, Esq.
      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
      Tel: (877) 882-1011
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
              cschaffer@lfsblaw.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
      Tel: (415) 568-2555
      Fax: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
              cwoods@audetlaw.com
              lkuang@audetlaw.com


BIZLENDER LLC: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bizlender, LLC and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 4:17-cv-06863 (N.D. Calif., November 29,
2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for Defendants' violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff, Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., is a rooting and
plumbing business in Emeryville, California.

Defendant, Bizlender, LLC, is loan provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs. CANG
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN JAMES STROTHER, Plaintiff, v. DAVID S.
BALDWIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-TLN-CKD (E.D
Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (i) granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and class
certification.

The Plaintiff contends that he reenlisted in the California Army
National Guard ("CANG") during a time of war with the
understanding he would receive certain reenlistment bonuses and
incentive payments.  He did receive them and was subsequently
sent to serve his country in Iraq.  Nevertheless, years later,
the military determined that he was not entitled to these bonuses
and payments.

At the time of the filing of the action, the bonuses and payments
he received were being "recouped" from his pay.  According to
Plaintiff, many of his fellow members of CANG similarly
reenlisted with this same understanding and have suffered the
same fate.  For this reason, the Plaintiff filed a complaint
containing class allegations and currently seeks to certify it as
a class action.

On Aug. 4, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
issued a decision waiving the Plaintiff's alleged obligation to
repay his $15,000 reenlistment bonus.  On Aug. 15, 2016, the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service refunded to the Plaintiff
$4,885.51 -- the entire amount it had withheld from his pay in
connection with the recoupment at issue in the case.

On Dec. 23, 2016, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017
("NDAA") was signed into law.  The NDAA provided that the
Secretary of Defense will conduct a review of all bonus pays and
student loan repayments that were paid to members of the National
Guard of the State of California during the period beginning on
Jan. 1, 2004, and ending on Dec. 31, 2015.  The Department of
Defense conducted a review of the Plaintiff's incentive payments
and waived the remainder of his alleged "debts."  The Defendants
assert that the Department of Defense reviewed incentive payments
made to 17,485 CANG members and, after that review, all but 393
received favorable determinations, similar to those received by
the Plaintiff.

Before the Court pursuant are three motions.  The first is the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which the Plaintiff opposes.  The
second is the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and
class certification, which the Defendants oppose.  The third is
the Defendants' motion to strike statement of interest of amicus
curiae.  The Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Motion
to Strike.

The complaint contains the following five causes of action: (i)
failure to train pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (ii)
breach/impairment of contracts; (iii) intentional
misrepresentation; (iv) deceit or intentional fraud; and (v)
concealment fraud.

The Defendants move to dismiss these claims for three separate
reasons.  First, they argue the instant action must be dismissed
for lack of Article III jurisdiction as developments since the
commencement of the action have rendered each of these causes of
action moot.  Second, they move to dismiss the third, fourth, and
fifth causes of action for failure to comply with the Federal
Tort Claim Act's ("FTCA") administrative exhaustion requirement.
Third, the Defendants argue that each of the causes of action
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.

Having carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties,
Judge Nunley concludes that (i) none of the causes of action in
the complaint are moot, (ii) the Defendants' arguments relating
to sovereign immunity and the FTCA require the dismissal of the
third, fourth, and fifth causes of action insofar as they are
brought against federal officials in their official capacities,
(iii) each of the causes of action must be dismissed for failure
to state a claim, (iv) the second cause of action is dismissed
with prejudice, and (v) the first, third, fourth, and fifth
causes of action are dismissed with leave to amend.

Accordingly, he ordered that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part, and the complaint is
dismissed, as set forth.  The Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint in conformity with the Order within 30 days of the date
the Order is filed.  He denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, and denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike, subject to renewal if the Plaintiff files an
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZG7wv4 from Leagle.com.

Bryan James Strother, Sgt., California Army National Guard,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Clyde Willman, Law Office Daniel
C. Willman, pro hac vice.

Bryan James Strother, Sgt., California Army National Guard,
Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Milgrom Lasser --
samlasser@hotmail.com -- Law Office of Samuel M. Lasser.

David S. Baldwin, Adjunct General, State of California National
Guard, Defendant, represented by Philip A. Scarborough --
philip.scarborough@usdoj.gov -- Office of the United States
Attorney.

Mike McCord, Pentagon Comptroller, Defendant, represented by
Philip A. Scarborough, Office of the United States Attorney.

Defense Finance and Accounting Services, Defendant, represented
by Philip A. Scarborough, Office of the United States Attorney.

United States Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by
Philip A. Scarborough, Office of the United States Attorney.

Robert M. Handy, Movant, Pro Se.


CHAVIN GROUP: "Lin" Action Seeks Overtime, Tips, Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------
Ke Lin, Joanna Maslowska, John Krajewski and Erick Juca Chavez,
Plaintiffs, v. Chavin Group, Inc., Raul Santillan, Mario
Santillan and Freddy Iparraguirre, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-07197 (E.D. N.Y, December 11, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours pay and
other wages, accurate wage statements that include an accounting
of tip credits, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Payment
of Wages Act, Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Chavin Group operates as Chimu Bistro Peruvian, a Peruvian
Restaurant located at 482 Union Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11211
where Plaintiffs worked as servers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Donnelly Bush, Esq.
      Law Offices of Anne Donnelly Bush
      43 West 43rd Street, Suite 117
      New York, NY 10036-7424
      Tel: (914) 239 3601
      Fax: (914) 219 3145
      Email: adblaw@annedonnellybush.com


CIOX HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Consumer Fraud Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Kasher Law Group, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Ciox Health LLC, Case No. CAM-L-004719-17
(N.J. Super., December 11, 2017), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief under the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act
and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

This is a class action on behalf of New Jersey citizens and their
designated representatives who were charged copy fees by
Defendant for electronic copies of medical records, which fees
far exceeded the maximum limit allowed.

Plaintiff Kasher Law Group, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company with offices in New Jersey. Plaintiff is the attorney
for, and thus is the designated legally authorized representative
of, a client/patient who is a citizen of New Jersey and received
treatment from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, a healthcare
provider in Camden, New Jersey. Like all class members, Plaintiff
was victimized by the uniform Ciox policies alleged herein.

Defendant Ciox Health, LLC is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business located at 925 North Point Parkway,
Suite 350, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. Ciox is an information
management company that provides medical records storage and
management services to, hospitals, physicians' offices,
outpatient care facilities, and other health care providers and
organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
      Shane T. Prince, Esq.
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel: (856) 797-9951


CIVIL SERVICE: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Medford" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MEDFORD, JAMES BALDUCCI, JOSEPH BONSIGNORI,
ROBERT MCKNIGHT, ANTHONY ORLOWSKI, ALFONSO V. GALLUCCIO, ANDREW
ETERGINEOSO, ANGELO TABONE, ANTHONY BOHUR, ANTHONY PECCIA,
ANTHONY SODANO, BRIAN DIEMICKE, BRIAN LOOMIS, BRYON FERRERI,
CARMINE DEVIVO, CARMINE RUSSIO, CHRISTIAN MCQUADE, DAN MATTEO,
DANIEL MULLEN, DAVID LLOYD, DUMONE LUCARELLI, ERIC STEVENS,
ERNEST SCHIEFERSTEIN, EUGENE PASSOLO, FRANK DESALVO, FRANK
FAMIGLIETTI, FRANK J. GANDIOSI, FRANK MELILLO, GERALD S. FORBES,
HENRY C. GUNDERMAN, HENRY F. PETERS, JACOB ALTNIER, JAMES
SMILLIE, JAMES VANNETTER, JOHN CATTAGIONE, JOHN FINK, JOHN
HUTTLE, JR., JOHN LAMENDOLA, JOHN KOZIKOWSKI, JOSEPH CERELLA,
JOSEPH HESS, JP PUGLIA, KEVIN ESPOSITO, KEVIN MCCLOREY, KEVIN
REYNOLDS, LOUIS S. PONTILLO, MARK SEHER, MICHAEL COMMISSO,
MICHAEL DELLWIN, MICHAEL MAYER, MICHAEL MOYLAN, MICHAEL
PACARIELLO, MICHAEL SORRENTINO, MIKE DESALVO, NICHOLAS LAMANNA,
NICK TARDO, PASQUALE MUSCARELLA, PAUL GARGANO, RICHARD
FRANKAITIS, RICHARD N. WEISS, RICHARD SANDIFORD III, ROBERT
ANDERSON, ROBERT S. MERBITZ, ROBERT STAWKOWSKI, ROBERT T.
QUARESIMO, ROBERT TABONE, RODRISO A. MUJICA, SCOTT D. SAUM, SCOTT
D'AMICO, STEVE BAITENKART, STEVEN MICHALOWSKI, THOMAS MARCIAN,
TIMUR YILMAZ, VINCENT CAHILL, VINCENT CARBONE, VINCENT CICCOLELLA
SR., WALTER WAGNER, WILLIAM FOX, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. THE CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, CSEA
LOCAL 881, JARVIS T. BROWN, TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, AND JOHN
Defendants, No. 17-CV-0011 (JFB) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Joseph
F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (i) granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, and (ii) dismissed the
Plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice to them attempting
to bring the claims in state court.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals against the Civil
Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
CSEA Local 881 ("Local 881"), Jarvis T. Brown, the Town of Oyster
Bay, and John Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA") and New
York state law.  The Plaintiffs also request punitive damages and
attorney's fees.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint and motion for a temporary
restraining order on Jan. 3, 2017.  The Court denied that motion
on the same day.  They filed the Amended Complaint on Feb. 25,
2017.  The Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on May 10, 2017,
which the Plaintiffs opposed on July 7, 2017, and the Defendants
replied on July 25, 2017.  The Court heard oral argument on the
motions to dismiss on Nov. 1, 2017.  On Nov. 8, 2017, at the
Court's direction, Defendants Local 881 and Brown filed a
supplemental declaration.

Judge Bianco granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction over the LMRDA claims.  In
particular, the uncontroverted record demonstrates that Local 881
represents only public sector employees -- namely, employees of
the Town of Oyster Bay, a political subdivision of New York
State.  Therefore, Local 881 is not subject to the LMRDA, which
does not apply to public sector unions, and no federal subject
matter jurisdiction exists over the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs argue that, because three Town employees perform
union-related work for Local 881 pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement, they are effectively private sector
employees, and transform Local 881 into a mixed union that is
subject to LMRDA jurisdiction.  The Judge disagrees explaining
that these employees, notwithstanding their work on behalf of
Local 881, remain public employees, and Local 881 does not
represent any members (including those three public employees) in
any negotiations with private sector employers.

Accordingly, because Local 881 is not a mixed union and thus is
not a "labor organization" under the LMRDA, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under the LMRDA.  In light of the
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Judge concludes that
there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state law claims.  Accordingly, he dismissed the
state law claims without prejudice to being brought in state
court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7vxc1O from Leagle.com.

John Medford, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel Law
Offices.

James Balducci, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel
Law Offices.

Walter Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel
Law Offices.

Scott Saum, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel Law
Offices.

Vincent Ciccolella, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana
Sobel, Sobel Law Offices.

Anthony Peccia, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel
Law Offices.

Steven Michalowski, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel,
Sobel Law Offices.

Joseph Bonsignori, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel,
Sobel Law Offices.

Robert McKnight, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel
Law Offices.

Frank Gandiosi, Plaintiff, represented by Svetlana Sobel, Sobel
Law Offices.

The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CSEA Local 881, Defendant, represented by Leslie
Catherine Perrin -- leslie.perrin@cseainc.org -- CSEA Inc. &
Aaron Edward Kaplan, CSEA Inc.

Town of Oyster Bay, New York, Defendant, represented by Matthew
M. Rozea, Office of the Town Attorney.


COMCAST CORP: Wins Bid to Strike "Santangelo" Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH SANTANGELO, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Case No.
15-cv-0293 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
granted Comcast's motion to strike Santangelo's class
allegations.

Santangelo alleges that, in December 2014, he contacted Comcast
via Comcast's online customer service "chat" function in order to
establish internet service in his apartment.  During Santangelo's
online chat session, Comcast's representative informed Santangelo
of the need to run a credit report to establish internet service.
Comcast's representative further informed Santangelo that, in
lieu of the credit report, Santangelo could pay a $50 deposit.
Santangelo chose the latter option and paid the $50 to obtain
internet service.  However, despite Santangelo paying the
deposit, Comcast ran a credit report anyway.

Comcast's subscriber agreement with Santangelo contained an
arbitration provision, set forth in Section 13.  Within 30 days
of signing up for Comcast's cable service, Santangelo opted out
of the arbitration provision, as Section 13(c) of the agreement
permitted him to do.  The arbitration provision requires those
subscribers who do not opt out within the 30-day period to raise
any disputes related to the agreement in an arbitration setting,
rather than the courts.  Section 13(f)(2) of the provision also
allows only individual claims and precludes claims that are
asserted on a class-wide or collective basis.  Furthermore,
Section 13(f)(1) of the arbitration provision requires a
subscriber to bring any claim within one year of the date of
occurrence of the event or facts giving rise to a dispute.

Santangelo has filed the suit on behalf of himself and four
putative classes, alleging that Comcast conducted an unauthorized
credit check that caused a drop in his credit score, in violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA").  He also has asserted state law
claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

In his amended complaint, Santangelo proposes four classes,
including an FCRA Class, IFCA Class, Breach of Contract Class,
and an Unjust Enrichment Class, each composed of all natural
persons residing in the United States or its Territories who were
the subject of a consumer report obtained by Comcast during the
ordering process, after Comcast collected the credit inquiry
deposit from the consumer.

Each of Santangelo's proposed classes therefore includes
subscribers who are bound by the arbitration provision, including
the one-year limitations period, (assuming it is enforceable).
Indeed, the parties do not dispute that only a small percentage
of Santangelo's putative class members opted out of Comcast's
arbitration provision.  The status hearing remains set for Dec.
7, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

Comcast has moved to strike Santangelo's class allegations or to
require Santangelo to amend the proposed class definitions to
exclude subscribers who did not opt out of Comcast's arbitration
provision.  Comcast argues that Santangelo's proposed classes
cannot satisfy Rule 23(a) because Santangelo is neither typical
of the classes he proposes to represent, nor adequate to protect
the interests of the classes.  Santangelo disagrees.

Having considered the record, Judge Lee agrees that Santangelo
cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement because he
cannot adequately represent the interests of the putative class
members who are potentially bound by Comcast's arbitration
provision.  He concludes that Santangelo will be inadequate to
represent the interests of the putative classes as currently
defined in Santangelo's amended complaint, and Comcast's motion
to strike class allegations is granted.  To the extent that
Santangelo wishes to pursue the action on a class-wide basis, he
must amend the proposed class definitions in a manner consistent
with the Order before filing a motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/IzzfVD from Leagle.com.

Keith Santangelo, Plaintiff, represented by Keith James Keogh,
Keogh Law, Ltd..

Keith Santangelo, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Wells, Keogh
Law, Ltd, Michael S. Hilicki, Keogh Law, LTD & Timothy J.
Sostrin, Keogh Law, LTD..

Comcast Corp., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Andreozzi
-- bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Justin O'Neill Kay -- justin.kay@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, Meredith Connie Slawe -- meredith.slawe@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath Llp, Michael W. McTigue, Jr. --
michael.mctigue@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath Llp & Seamus
Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath.


COMMERCE BANK: Van Gorp Files Appeal in Eighth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Van Gorp, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commerce Bank, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 17-3741 (8th Cir, Dec. 19, 2017), is an appeal
filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight
Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00189-CRW (S.D. Iowa, Dec. 13, 2017).

Transcript is due on or before January 29, 2018. Appellee brief
is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of
Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.

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

Attorneys for Stacy Van Gorp, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq.
          Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Street
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Business: (651) 770 9707
          Personal: (651) 770 9707

               - and -

          Samuel Z. Marks, Esq.
          MARKS LAW OFFICE
          2404 Forest
          Des Moines, IA 50312-0000

Attorneys for Commerce Bank:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          13520 California Street, Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Personal: (402) 965 8600


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled James Pinkney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07394
(E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2017).

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is one of America's collections
agencies with over twelve offices across the country.[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


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bergman" Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cox Communications
Incorporated. The case is styled as Amichai Bergman, pleading on
his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. Cox Communications Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04721-DKD (D. Ariz., December 20,
2017).

Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of
Cox Enterprises providing digital cable television,
telecommunications and Home Automation services in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Leslie Prather, Esq.
   5864 N 83rd St.
   Scottsdale, AZ 85250
   Tel: (480) 296-1507
   Email: johnlprather@gmail.com


CREDICO (USA): Vasto Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alex Torres, Philip Vasto, Zao Yang and Xiaoj Zheng
filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion & order dated
October 27, 2017, and judgment dated October 31, 2017, entered in
their lawsuit titled Vasto, et al. v. Credico (USA) LLC, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-9298, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek restitution of all deprived wages, payment for
training time, and all other entitled relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Credico (USA) LLC, on its own and through various entities
operated by Credico, including CroMex, provides its clients with
face-to-face sales and marketing services through its team of
workers located throughout the country.

The appellate case is captioned as Vasto, et al. v. Credico (USA)
LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3870, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Philip Vasto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Zao Yang, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Alex Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Xiaoj Zheng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jason Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON
          830 Morris Turnpike
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 379-4135
          E-mail: jspiro@spiroharrison.com

Defendants-Appellees Credico (USA) LLC, Cromex Inc. and Meixi Xu
are represented by:

          Joseph F. Tremiti, Esq.
          TREMITI LLC
          67 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 859-5059
          E-mail: jtremiti@tremitilaw.com


CVK RESTAURANT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Alvarez Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CVK Restaurant Corp. dba Murray Hill Diner,
Christos Katsanos, and Vasilios Katsanos, Case No. 1:17-cv-09679
(S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
for violations of the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Javier Alvarez Lopez was employed by Defendants from
approximately September 16, 2014 until on or about November 24,
2017. Plaintiff Alvarez was employed as a dishwasher and
ostensibly as a delivery worker.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a diner located at 222
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10016 under the name "Murray Hill
Diner." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CVS PHARMACY: Court Won't Stay "Kilby" Pending "Reed" Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NYKEYA KILBY, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 09cv2051-MMA (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her lawsuit
without prejudice, or in the alternative, to stay these
proceedings pending the outcome of a similar state court lawsuit,
Reed v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed in Alameda County Superior
Court.

Plaintiff Kilby previously worked at a CVS store as a "Customer
Service Representative," i.e., a clerk/cashier, for approximately
eight months.  She seeks civil penalties against CVS based on
CVS's alleged violation of Section 14 of Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Order 7-2001, which applies to retailers
such as CVS.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CVS fails to
provide its clerk/cashiers with suitable seats while operating
cash registers at the front end, or retail, section of CVS
stores, contrary to Section 14(A).  According to her, this in
turn violates California Labor Code Section 1198 and entitles her
to recover penalties under Section 2699(f) of the California
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

In April 2012, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
a class of former and current CVS clerk/cashiers who operated
front end cash registers and were not provided suitable seats
while doing so.  Subsequently, the Court granted CVS's motion for
summary judgment in its favor as to the merits of the Plaintiff's
PAGA claim.  The Plaintiff appealed both rulings.  After seeking
guidance from the California Supreme Court regarding the correct
interpretation of Section 14(A), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court's previous rulings and
remanded the action for reconsideration in light of the
California Supreme Court's opinion in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., 368 P.3d 554 (Cal. 2016).

On Aug. 22, 2016, the Court resumed jurisdiction over these
proceedings.  The parties participated in a case management
conference with the assigned magistrate judge, who subsequently
issued a scheduling order setting a class discovery deadline and
filing deadline for the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class
certification.

On Aug. 28, 2017, in lieu of a motion for class certification,
the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to dismiss the action
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2), or alternatively, to stay the action pending the
outcome of similar litigation in state superior court.  She
argues that CVS has obstructed the production of class discovery,
such that she was unable to file a properly supported motion for
class certification.  In the alternative, the Plaintiff requested
the Court stay the case pending the outcome of the state court
litigation.

CVS filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, ardently
disagreeing with the Plaintiff's characterization of the post-
remand proceedings.  In reply, the Plaintiff withdrew her motion
to dismiss the action, and she now solely seeks a stay of the
case.  CVS opposes staying the case.

The Plaintiff seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the
outcome of Reed v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.  According to her, Reed
involves an identical claim against CVS for damages under PAGA
based on CVS's purported violation of Section 14(A) of the wage
order.  The Reed action is currently stayed pending the outcome
of the litigation.  Nevertheless, she asserts that state court is
a more appropriate forum for resolution of the suitable seating
issues.  The Plaintiff also points out that the Reed action
includes a second claim under Section 14(B) of the wage order.
The Plaintiff asserts that it is more efficient for the two
claims to be adjudicated in a single action, in a single forum.
CVS counters that the Plaintiff is attempting to engage in
blatant forum shopping, motivated by her dissatisfaction with the
assigned magistrate judge's discovery rulings.

Judge Anello finds that a stay of these proceedings would not
promote the orderly course of justice.  Rather, he says, a stay
based on nascent state court proceedings which are currently
stayed in deference to the action -- while within the Court's
discretion -- would simply be inefficient.  Furthermore, he is
not convinced that state court provides a better forum for the
adjudication of the issues in the case, particularly since both
state and federal courts in California now have the benefit of
the California Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 14(A) of
the wage order.

In addition, the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that she will
suffer some particular hardship or inequity in being required to
go forward with the case.  Her argument regarding prejudice
resulting from the split litigation of claims under Sections
14(A) and 14(B) is a non sequitur.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff is not a party in the Reed action, and she does not
bring a claim in this case against CVS based on Section 14(B) of
the wage order.  The litigation of such a claim by a different
litigant in a different forum at some time in the future does not
prejudice the Plaintiff in the action.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Anello declines to exercise its
discretion to stay these proceedings.  Accordingly, he denied the
Plaintiff's motion.  He will issue a separate written ruling on
CVS's pending motion for summary judgment in due course.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/H1TB41 from Leagle.com.

Nykeya Kilby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James F. Clapp --
jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP.

Nykeya Kilby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti --
matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski PC, Kevin J. McInerney
-- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones & Marita Murphy
Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Moss --
gmoss@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Michael
D. Weil -- mweil@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Timothy J. Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe & Stephanie Gail Lee -- stephanie.lee@orrick.com --
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


DALLAS, TX: "Bass" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Terrance Bass, Barry Boyd, Elizabeth Lopez, and Joseph Scott,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The City of Dallas, Case No. 3:17-cv-03330 (N.D. Tex., December
8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Title Two of the Texas Labor Code.

Plaintiffs are persons who were and are employed by Defendants in
different positions throughout Defendants' various departments.
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs with an overtime premium for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendant is a municipality located within the state of Texas
and within the Northern District of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
      ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
      400 South Zang Blvd., Ste 1015
      Dallas, TX 75208
      Tel: (214) 984-3334
      E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law


DCI CREDIT: Faces "Flemmer" Suit in District of North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCI Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Flemmer and Aamna
Flemmer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DCI Credit Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00272-CSM (D. N.D., December 20, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
   CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER PA
   367 COMMERCE COURT
   VADNAIS HEIGHTS, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: Pension Trust Fund Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP, INC., DANIEL HAMBURGER,
RICHARD M. GUNST, PATRICK J. UNZICKER, AND TIMOTHY J. WIGGINS,
Defendants, Case No. 16 C 5198 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge L. Alonso
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Lead
Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems' Second Amended Class Action
Complaint For Violations of the Federal Securities Laws for
failure to state a claim under Rule 8, Rule 9(b), and the
heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The lawsuit centers on the Defendants' public statements
concerning the job placement statistics for graduates of a DeVry
subsidiary, DeVry University ("DVU").  For years, DVU has
marketed itself to prospective students -- and the Defendants
have marketed it to investors -- by claiming, in one form or
another, that approximately 90% of DVU graduates obtain
employment in their field of study within six months of
graduation at average yearly salaries of approximately $40,000 or
more ("90% Statement").  Not only did the 90% Statement appear in
DVU advertising and marketing materials for years, but the
Defendants repeatedly made some version of the 90% Statement in
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
in public statements to investors and analysts.

In January 2014, DeVry received a civil investigative demand from
the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), requesting information
relating to the advertising, marketing or sale of secondary or
postsecondary educational products or services in order to
determine whether DeVry had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 45, which prohibits unfair methods of competition
in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce, including false or deceptive
advertising.

On Jan. 27, 2016, after a two-year investigation, the FTC filed a
lawsuit against DeVry and DVU in the Central District of
California.  FTC alleged that the DeVry entities made two types
of misrepresentations in their marketing and advertising: "the
90% claims" and the "higher-income claim."  On Dec. 15, 2016, the
FTC issued a press release announcing that it had settled the
case with the DeVry entities.  Under the terms of the settlement,
DeVry was to set up a $49.4 fund million to distribute to
qualifying students who were harmed by the deceptive ads, as well
as $50.6 million in debt relief.

On the same day that the FTC filed its complaint, the Department
of Education ("DOE") publicly issued to DVU a Notice of Intent to
impose limitations on DVU's participation in programs authorized
pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act.  Based on the
findings of its investigation, the DOE decided to impose certain
conditions on DVU's receipt of Title IV funds, including, among
other things, requiring DVU to cease making any representations
based on graduate employment statistics, particularly the "since
1975" representation, unless and until it is able to substantiate
them with graduate-specific information.

The Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint,
asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Commission.  It alleges that the Defendants' false and misleading
representations to investors concerning graduate employment
statistics over several years between August 2011 and January
2016 artificially inflated DeVry's stock price, and the news of
the FTC lawsuit and DOE action on Jan. 27, 2016, caused the stock
value to fall, to the detriment of the Plaintiff and other
investors, and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 of the SEC.  Additionally, it claims that the
individual Defendants are liable as "controlling persons" of
DeVry under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6).  In support of their
motion to dismiss, they principally argue that (i) the Plaintiff
does not meet its burden to plead falsity and (ii) its complaint
fails to raise a strong inference of scienter.

Judge Alonso finds that the Plaintiff relies most heavily on the
FTC's allegations in its Jan. 27, 2016 complaint against the
DeVry entities.  The FTC, in turn, relied on information it had
allegedly discovered in DVU's Career Services files indicating
that DVU had misclassified certain employed graduates as working
in their fields of study, when in fact they were not, and certain
unemployed graduates as not proactively seeking a job, when in
fact they were.  But the FTC did not specifically identify the
information that it allegedly discovered other than to give a few
examples of graduates who were misclassified.

The Judge further finds that the statements of the Confidential
Witnesses do not cure this deficiency in the Plaintiff's
allegations.  Even taking them at face value, only CW3 provides
particularized details that meaningfully corroborate the FTC's
allegations of misclassification problems with the graduate
employment statistics.  But his experience was limited to two
campuses in central California, and his statement does little to
broaden the scope of the complaint's allegations to support the
inference that the misclassification problems were so widespread
and pervasive as to affect the accuracy of nationwide graduate
employment statistics.

Judge Alonso also finds that even combining the allegations of
the Confidential Witnesses with the allegations of the FTC
Complaint, the inference that the Defendants knew of a
substantial risk that the 90% Statement was false is not cogent
and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations.   As
for duration, the fact that the Defendants made the 90% Statement
many times over a period of several years provides no support for
any inference of scienter if they never had reason to suspect
that it was false, and as the Judge has explained, the
allegations do not support a strong inference that the Defendants
must have known of a substantial risk that the 90% Statement was
false.

For these reasons, Judge Alonso granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.  The
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by Jan. 15, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/uhvuVu from Leagle.com.

Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff,
represented by Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena
White.

Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff,
represented by Norman Rifkind, Law Office of Norman Rifkind.

Utah Retirement Systems, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S. Willis
-- mwillis@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C. Villegas
-- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Kenneth
A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, Mark
Richard Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP &
Theodore J. Hawkins -- thawkins@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP.

DeVry Education Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan
Norris Salpeter, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Aaron Miner --
aaron.miner@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Bryan
Michael Westhoff, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Jeffrey A.
Fuisz -- jeffrey.fuisz@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP & Phillip A. Geraci -- phillip.geraci@apks.com -- Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Daniel Hamburger, Defendant, represented by Alan Norris Salpeter,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Aaron Miner, Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Bryan Michael Westhoff, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Jeffrey A. Fuisz, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP &
Phillip A. Geraci, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Richard M. Gunst, Defendant, represented by Alan Norris Salpeter,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Aaron Miner, Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Bryan Michael Westhoff, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Jeffrey A. Fuisz, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP &
Phillip A. Geraci, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Timothy J. Wiggins, Defendant, represented by Alan Norris
Salpeter, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Aaron Miner, Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Bryan Michael Westhoff, Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Jeffrey A. Fuisz, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP & Phillip A. Geraci, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP..

Patrick J. Unzicker, Defendant, represented by Alan Norris
Salpeter, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.


DIRECTV LLC: Mey Files Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DirecTV LLC, Adam Cox, AC1
Communications, IQ Marketing 2 Corp. and Michael Aghari,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-179 (N.D. W.V., December 11, 2017),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited
telemarketing calls and activities, all expenses of this action
and such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Adam Cox and Michael Aghari own AC1 Communications and IQ
Marketing 2 Corp., respectively, and are authorized DirecTV
Dealers.  Mey alleges that the Defendants sent unsolicited
prerecorded telemarketing calls to her mobile number which is
listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Barret, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
      Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
      Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol St.
      Charleston WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
             jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
             rdonovan@baileyglasser.com
             skinney@baileyglasser.com


E.J. LANDRIGAN: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.J. Landrigan,
Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v E.J. Landrigan, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10141 (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017).

E.J. Landrigan, Inc. is in the Jewelry Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAST 53RD STREET: "Villa" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Villa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. East 53rd Street LLC dba Al Bustn, Elias Ghafary,
Paul Boulos Elias Hobeika, and Nehmetallah Hobeika, Case No.
1:17-cv-09385 (S.D. N.Y., November 30, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Edwin Villa was employed by Defendants as a restaurant
employee whose duties included, but was not limited to, preparing
food, stocking merchandise, making deliveries, and general clean
up.

The Defendants own and operate a Lebanese restaurant in
Manhattan, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Cafaro, Esq.
      Amit Kumar, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212)583-7400


EMERSON ELECTRIC: 8th Circuit Appeal Launched in "Hale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hale, Raymond Gray, Andrew Bowers, Emilio Gonzales, Kenneth
Thompson, Eric Shults, Justin Swires, Estaban Maravilla, Lauren
Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Respondents, v. Emerson Electric Company, Sears Holdings
Corporation, Sears, Roebuck and Company, and The Home Depot,
Inc., the Petitioners, Case No. 17-8030 (8th Cir, Dec. 14, 2017),
is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eight Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class
action, Case No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA (E.D. Mo.).

Attorneys for Respondents:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Business: (314) 241 8111
          Personal: (314) 241 8111

               - and -

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New YOrk, NY 10017
          Business: 877-247-4292

               - and -

          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Business: (314) 241 8111

               - and -

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John G. Simonv, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Business: (314) 241 2929
          Personal: (314) 241 2929

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL LAW GROUP
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94804-0000
          Personal: (510) 237 3930

               - and -

          Jay Dinan, Esq.
          PARKER & WAICHMAN
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Business: (239) 390 0055
          Personal: (239) 390 1000

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN & SEDRAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Personal: (215) 592 1500

               - and -

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
          NEBLETT & BEARD
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Business: (318) 487 9874
          Personal: (318) 487 9874

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM
          12800 University Drive, Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Personal: (239) 470 8338

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Mark G. Arnold, Esq.
          Matthew R. Grant, Esq.
          Joseph C. Orlet, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Business: (314) 480 1500
          Personal: (314) 480 1802


EQUIFAX INC: Faces ANECA Federal Credit Union Suit in N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled ANECA Federal Credit Union, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Equifax, Inc. and
Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05473-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 28, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
   Pittman Hooks Dutton & Hollis
   2001 Park Place North
   Park Place Tower, Suite 1100
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 322-8880
   Email: chrish@pittmandutton.com

      - and -

   Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
   Pittman, Dutton, Kirby & Hellums, P.C.
   2001 Park Place North
   Park Place Tower, Suite 1100
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 322-8880
   Fax: (205) 328-2711
   Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com

      - and -

   Michael Lee McGlamry, Esq.
   Pope McGlamry, P.C.
   P.O. Box 191625
   Suite 300
   3391 Peachtree Road, N.E.
   Atlanta, GA 31119-1625
   Tel: (404) 523-7706
   Fax: (404) 524-1648
   Email: efile@pmkm.com

      - and -

   N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
   Pope McGlamry, P.C.
   P.O. Box 191625
   Suite 300
   3391 Peachtree Road, N.E.
   Atlanta, GA 31119-1625
   Tel: (404) 523-7706
   Fax: (404) 524-1648
   Email: efile@pmkm.com

      - and -

   Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
   Conley Griggs Partin, LLP- GA
   4200 Northside Parkway, NW
   Atlanta, GA 30327
   Tel: (404) 467-1155
   Fax: (404) 467-1166
   Email: ranse@conleygriggs.com
   Building One, Suite 300

      - and -

   Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
   14th Floor
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980
   Fax: (212) 687-7714
   Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com


EQUIFAX INC: Face Heritage Federal Credit Suit in N.D. of Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Heritage Federal Credit Union, ICUL Service
Corporation doing business as: LSC, Services Credit Union and
UMassFive College Federal Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial
institutions, Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05265-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 20, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
   Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC
   3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
   One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 842-9700
   Fax: (404) 842-9750
   Email: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

      - and -

   Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (505) 525-8100
   Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

      - and -

   Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. -MN
   1100 IDS Center
   80 South 8th Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 341-0400
   Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

      - and -

   Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
   Chestnut Cambronne, PA
   17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 339-7300
   Fax: (612) 336-2940
   Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

      - and -

   Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246

      - and -

   Carol Thomas, Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 525-8100
   Fax: (504) 584-5249

      - and -

   Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
   Berman Fink Van Horn, P.C. -Atl
   3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1100
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 261-7711
   Fax: (404) 233-1943
   Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com

      - and -

   Erin Green Comite, Esq.
   Scott & Scott, LLP-NY
   17th Floor
   230 Park Avenue
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (860) 537-5537
   Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

      - and -

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
   Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
   230 Park Avenue
   17th Floor
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (212) 223-6444
   Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

      - and -

   Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen
   100 Washington Avenue South
   2200 Washington Square
   Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Email: khriebel@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen
   100 Washington Avenue South
   2200 Washington Square
   Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 525-8100
   Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

      - and -

   Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
   Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC
   8 E. Liberty Street
   Savannah, GA 31401
   Tel: (912) 447-8400
   Fax: (912) 233-6584
   Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Washington Gas Light Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Washington Gas Light Federal Credit Union,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
credit unions, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05301-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 20, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates as a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James A. Kitces, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, LLP-MA
   25th Floor
   800 Boylston Street
   Boston, MA 02199
   Tel: (617) 267-2300
   Fax: (617) 267-8288
   Email: jakitces@rkmc.com

      - and -

   Mary C. Turke, Esq.
   Turke & Strauss, LLP
   613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
   Madison, WI 53703
   Tel: (608) 237-1776
   Email: mary@turkestrauss.com

      - and -

   Michael Ram, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA
   2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: 650-7084-4007

      - and -

   Sam E. Khoroosi, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (612) 339-4181

      - and -

   Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
   Turke & Strauss, LLP
   613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
   Madison, WI 53703
   Tel: (608) 237-1775
   Fax: (608) 509-4423

      - and -

   Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (612) 339-4181

      - and -

   Susan Brown, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA
   2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: (650) 784-4007

      - and -

   William Henry Stanhope
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (404) 233-1267
   Email: WStanhope@RobinsKaplan.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Scott Phillips filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Phillips v. Equity Residential Mgmt., LLC,
Case No. 1:13-cv-12092-RWZ, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The nature of suit is stated as "All Other Real Property."

The appellate case is captioned as Phillips v. Equity Residential
Mgmt., LLC, Case No. 17-2182, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

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

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Ave., 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
          100 TRADE CENTER
          Woburn, MA 01801
          Telephone: (617) 600-7520
          Facsimile: (617) 600-7430
          E-mail: Joshua@GarickLaw.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          63 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 329-1291
          E-mail: prestonleonard@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., is
represented by:

          Craig M. White, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          191 N Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-1901
          Telephone: (312) 416-6200
          Facsimile: (312) 416-6201
          E-mail: cwhite@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Hoelder Wintner, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
          1 Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111-0000
          Telephone: (617) 542-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
          E-mail: twintner@mintz.com


ES KLUFT: "Abbott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeramie Abbott, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. E.S. Kluft & Company, Inc., Prime Staff, Inc., CL
Staffing Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC686539 (Calif.
Super., December 11, 2017), is a class action complaint for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and violation of the
California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Jeramie Abbott was a resident of Los Angeles,
California and a former employee of the Defendants.

Defendants E.S. Kluft & Company, Inc., Prime Staff, Inc., CL
Staffing Inc. and Does 1 through 100 were joint employers of
Plaintiffs in that they were operating as a joint enterprise and
both suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work for each and both
of them. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (323) 857-5900


EUROPLUS MOTORSPORTS: Barnett Sues Over Overpriced Car Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benedict Barnett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Europlus Motorsports, Inc., Zhan
Shabayez and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. MID-L-007290-17,
(N.J. Sup., December 11, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New Jersey
Used Car Lemon Law, New Jersey Used Car Lemon Law Regulation and
the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act.

Europlus Motorsport Inc., operates a used car dealership. Barnett
agreed to a purchase price of $19,995.00 for a Ford Focus with a
down payment of $4,000 and the balance for bank financing.
However, the documents that was sent to the bank for a vehicle
loan application reached $22,000.00 making the vehicle cost
amounting to $24,000.00. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Oorbeck, Esq.
     THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
     1520 US. Highway 130, Suite 101
     North Brunswick, NJ 08902
     Tel: (732) 545-7900
     Fax: (732) 545-1030


FINANCIAL CREDIT: Faces "Carroll" Suit in C.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Credit
Network, Inc. The case is styled Marianne Carroll, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v
Financial Credit Network, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02555
(C.D. Cal., December 28, 2017).

Defendant Financial Credit Network, Inc., is a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Luz Maria De la Cruz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-09931-VB (S.D. N.Y., December 20,
2017).

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
   Jones,Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
   One Grand Central Place
   60 East 42st, 46th Floor
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (646) 459-7971
   Fax: (646) 459-7973
   Email: bwolf@legaljones.com

      - and -

   Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
   Jones, Wolf & Kapasi LLC
   555 Fifth Avenue Ste 1700
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (646) 459-7971
   Fax: (646) 459-7973
   Email: jkj@legaljones.com


FINISAR CORP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In In re FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:11-cv-01252-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff brings the putative securities fraud class action
against Finisar, Eitan Gertel, and Jerry S. Rawls, alleging that
the Defendants issued a single false or misleading statement on
Dec. 2, 2010, denying an inventory build-up of Finisar's key
telecom products by the Company's customers.

Finisar is a technology company that develops and sells fiber
optic subsystems and components that enable high-speed voice,
video and data communications for telecommunications, networking,
storage, wireless and cable television applications.  Gertel
served as CEO and a director of Finisar from August 2008 to
September 2015.  The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class
Period, Gertel made over $5.17 million by selling 201,913 shares
of his Finisar stock at artificially inflated prices.  Rawls has
served as Chairman of the Board of Finisar since 2006 and was
appointed CEO in September 2015.

The Plaintiff alleges that on Dec. 2, 2010, Finisar's then-CEO,
Gertel, participated in the Credit Suisse Technology Conference
call, during which, an analyst from Credit Suisse named William
Stein allegedly highlighted that Finisar had significantly
outgrown its end markets for the last six quarters and raised the
fear that the company's growth is going to revert.  The same day
Gertel made the statement that Finisar's common stock increased
$3.29 per share (or 16.64%), going from $19.77 per share on Dec.
1, 2010, to close at $23.06 per share on Dec. 2, 2010.  The
following day, on Dec. 3, 2010, the price per share increased
another $0.95 (or 4.12%).  The Plaintiff alleges that Finisar's
stock price continued to rise in this manner throughout the Class
Period, reaching a Class Period high of $43.23 per share on Feb.
14, 2011.

But on March 8, 2011, Finisar issued a press release indicating
that its fourth quarter revenues would be lower than projected
due in part to the previously undisclosed inventory build-up at
some of the Company's telecom customers and a slowdown in
business in China.  The press release was issued after the market
closed on March 8, 2011.  Rawls also held a conference call the
same day to discuss the expected results, and explained the
inventory adjustment.  In reaction to the March 8 press release,
Finisar's stock price dropped by $15.43 per share, falling from
$40.04 per share on March 8, 2011 to close at $24.61 on March 9,
2011, marking a one-day decline of nearly 39%.  The Plaintiff
asserts that Finisar's stock price has never fully recovered from
this decline.

The Plaintiff contends that Gertel's December 2nd statement
misled investors as to the nature of Finisar's growth by denying
that its revenue increase was the result of a short-term,
unsustainable inventory build-up by customers rather than the
result of increased demand for Finisar products.  It claims that
the statement misrepresented Finisar's growth as being "in line
with" and "not outpacing" the end-market growth, and incorrectly
suggested that its growth would not revert due to an inventory
correction after an inventory build-up by customers.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired the public traded common stock
of Finisar during the period from Dec. 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

After careful examination of the record, Judge Davila finds that
the Plaintiff's proposed Class satisfies the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements to maintain a
class action under Rule 23(a).

With respect to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Judge concludes
that the Defendants have rebutted the basic presumption of fraud-
on-the-market reliance by demonstrating through a preponderance
of evidence that Gertel's December 2nd statement had no price
impact when made or thereafter.  It follows that the predominance
requirement for class certification has not been met.

Accordingly, Judge Davila denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The Judge vacated the hearing scheduled for Dec.
7, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/reBIrE from Leagle.com.

Martin Derchi-Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine J.
Kowalewski -- katek@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Martin Derchi-Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Darren Jay Robbins
-- sd@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David
Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Dennis J. Herman -- donnish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Finisar Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Allen Priebe
-- david.priebe@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP (US), Diana Mariko
Maltzer -- diana.maltzer@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, Rajiv Sajjan
Dharnidharka -- rajiv.dharnidharka@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US
LLP, Roy K. McDonald -- roy.mcdonald@dlapiper.com -- McDermott
Will & Emery LLP & Shirli Fabbri Weiss --
shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.

Jerry S. Rawls, Defendant, represented by David Allen Priebe --
david.priebe@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Diana Mariko Maltzer
-- diana.maltzer@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, Rajiv Sajjan
Dharnidharka, DLA Piper US LLP, Roy K. McDonald, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP & Shirli Fabbri Weiss, DLA Piper LLP.

Eitan Gertel, Defendant, represented by David Allen Priebe, DLA
Piper LLP, Diana Mariko Maltzer, DLA Piper, Rajiv Sajjan
Dharnidharka, DLA Piper US LLP, Roy K. McDonald, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP & Shirli Fabbri Weiss, DLA Piper LLP.

Kurt Adzema, Defendant, represented by David Allen Priebe, DLA
Piper LLP, Diana Mariko Maltzer, DLA Piper, Rajiv Sajjan
Dharnidharka, DLA Piper US LLP, Roy K. McDonald, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP & Shirli Fabbri Weiss, DLA Piper LLP.

Daniel Levy, Movant, represented by Reed R. Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Ian David Berg, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP, pro hac
vice, Takeo A. Kellar, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP & Ximena
R. Skovron, Abraham Fruchter Twersky LLP, pro hac vice.

Hetal Patel, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg --
mgoldberg@softtissuelawyer.com -- Goldberg Law PC.

Andrew Lee, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity,
Movant, represented by Dennis J. Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Dennis J. Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

James Ray Abell, Movant, represented by Dennis J. Herman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

James Kenney, Movant, represented by Kevin Andrew Seely --
kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.


FIVE GUYS: "Finefrock" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jody Finefrock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Five Guys Operations, LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02214 (M.D. Pa., December 1, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant to address unlawful gender discrimination in employee
pay practices pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Plaintiff, Ms. Finefrock, is a resident of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, residing at 156 2nd Street, 2nd Floor, Dauphin
County, Highspire, Pennsylvania. From July 2012 until her
termination in September 2015, Plaintiff Finefrock was a female
employee at Five Guys.

Defendant, Five Guys, is a Delaware limited liability company
which maintains its principal place of business and corporate
headquarters at 10718 Richmond Highway, Lorton, Virginia. Five
Guys operates a nationwide chain of restaurants based on the
hamburger concept.

Defendant, Ican Benefit Group LLC is a marketer of medical
products and medical related financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
      Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
      MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
      2041 Herr Street
      Harrisburg, PA 17103
      Tel: (717) 260-3854
      Fax: (717) 233-8133
      E-mail: lweisberg@mwcfirm.com
              dcummings@mwcfirm.com


G & J READY: Faces "Penafiel" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G & J Ready Mix &
Masonry Supply, Inc. The case is styled Fabian Penafiel,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G & J Ready Mix & Masonry Supply, Inc.,
Green Ready Mixx, LLC., d/b/a Green Ready Mix, John Cervoni, Dala
Delima and "John" (First name unknown) Singh, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-07395 (E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2017).

G & J Ready Mix & Masonry Supply, Inc. is in the Ready-mixed
Concrete business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear PRO SE.


GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Appeal in A&M Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated other Conor Carruthers, the Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant-
Appellant, Caption, Case No. 17-15606 (11th Cir, Dec. 19, 2017),
is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud
class action, Case No. 0:16-cv-62610-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov 3, 2016).

Appellant's brief is due on or before Jan. 29, 2018. The appendix
is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the Appellant's
brief.

Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
before Jan. 2, 2018 as to Appellant GEICO General Insurance
Company.

Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
before Jan. 16, 2018 as to Appellee A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC.

Attorneys for A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated other Conor Carruthers:

          Gary M. Farmer, Sr., Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Michael Trent Lewenz, Esq.
          Todd S. Payne, Esq.
          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHMAN, PL
          425 N ANDREWS AVE STE 2
          FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
          Business: (954) 524 2820
          Personal: (954) 524 2820

Attorneys for Geico General Insurance Company:

          Thomas L. Hunker, Esq.
          Peter Weinstein, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd Ste 500
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Business: (954) 343 3929
          Personal: (954) 343 3943


GENERAL MOTORS: Jan. 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Sloan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, (i) set the
hearing on GM's motion to dismiss for Jan. 10, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.;
(ii) set the Case Management Conference ("CMC") for Jan. 10, 2018
at 9:30 a.m.; and (iii) ordered that a joint CMC statement will
be filed by Jan. 3, 2018, in the case captioned MONTEVILLE SLOAN,
JR., RAUL SIQUEIROS, TODD AND JILL CRALLEY, JOSEPH BRANNAN, LARRY
GOODWIN, MARC PERKINS, DONALD LUDINGTON, THOMAS SHORTER, DERICK
BRADFORD, GABRIEL DEL VALLE, KEVIN HANNEKEN, EDWIN AND KATELYN
DOEPEL, DAN MADSON, JAMES FAULKNER, JOSEPH OLIVIER, SCOTT SMITH,
ROSS DAHL, DREW PETERSON, MICHAEL WARE, STEVE KITCHEN, JOHN
NEUBAUER, BARBARA MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, STEVEN EHRKE, BILL MAUCH,
THOMAS GULLING, RONALD JONES, MIKE WARPINSKI, JOHN GRAZIANO,
JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER THACKER, RANDY CLAUSEN,
KELLY HARRIS, JAMES ROBERTSON, and JONAS BEDNAREK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs, on Aug. 1, 2017, filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On Sept. 14, 2017, the Court entered an Order
setting a briefing schedule for GM's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, setting the
CMC and the hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss for Dec.
14, 2017.

The Plaintiffs' counsel at DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, who
intends to argue on behalf of the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, received unexpectedly voluminous
Daubert and Summary judgment motions in another matter, which
require a response by Dec. 13, 2017.  The Plaintiffs conferred
with GM regarding their request for a brief continuance of the
Dec. 14 hearing date.

The Court has indicated that it is available on Jan. 10, 2018 at
9:30 a.m. to hear GM's motion and hold the CMC.

Therefore, the parties stipulated, and Judge Chen granted, that
(i) the hearing on GM's motion to dismiss will be set for Jan.
10, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; (ii) the CMC is set Jan. 10, 2018 at 9:30
a.m.; and (iii) a joint CMC statement will be filed by Jan. 3,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/i8KfJN from Leagle.com.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus
-- lori@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,  55 W Monroe St # 1111, Chicago, IL
60603, USA, Andrew England Brashier --
andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Anthony J. Garcia -- Anthony@aglawinc.com -- AG Law, P.A.,
Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, 218 Commerce St. PO Box
4160, Montgomery, AL 36103, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri --
dferri@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III -- clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell
Kristine Shannon -- jshannon@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker,
pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com --
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello --
madicello@dlcfirm.com -- The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Timothy J. Becker -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III --
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice &
Jennie Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus
Anderson LLP.

Raul Siqueiros, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Donald Ludington, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Thomas Shorter, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Gabriel Del Valle, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Gail Lannom, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.

Bradley K. Zierke, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Ross Dahl, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra
-- Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP &
Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse
Crose & Oxford LLP.


GEO GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Chen" Unpaid Wages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAO CHEN, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert
J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied GEO's Motion to Dismiss Class Action
Complaint for Damage.

GEO, a private corporation, has owned and operated the Northwest
Detention Center, a 1,500 bed ICE facility, since 2005.
Northwest Detention Center detainees include Mr. Chen, who was
detained pending immigration proceedings from October 2014 until
February 2016.  Mr. Chen is a citizen of the People's Republic of
China, but has been a lawful permanent resident of the United
States since the 1980s.  GEO relies upon detainees for its
grounds maintenance, cooking, laundry, cleaning, and other
services.  It has compensated detainees, including Mr. Chen, at
$1 per day and in some cases alternatively compensated detainees
with more and better food.

Washington's minimum wage is $11 an hour.  The Complaint alleges
that Mr. Chen is entitled to compensation at that rate because he
is an "employee" as defined by the Washington State Minimum Wage
Act.  The Complaint seeks damages for lost wages, fees, and
costs1 on behalf of a proposed class, including Mr. Chen and
others similarly situated.

The Defendant's motion seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) under two theories: (i) State law is preempted, and (ii)
the Complaint fails to state a claim that detainees, including
Mr. Chen, are "employees" deserving State minimum wage
protections.

According to the Defendant, GEO operates the Northwest Detention
Center by a complex statutory, regulatory, and contractual
relationship with ICE.  The Contract requires of GEO, inter alia,
that detainee labor will be used in accordance with the detainee
work plan developed by the Contractor, and will adhere to the ICE
PBNDS [Performance-Based National Detention Standards] on
Voluntary Work Program.

The detainee compensation provision of the Voluntary Work Program
states that the Detainees will receive monetary compensation for
work completed in accordance with the facility's standard policy.
The compensation is at least $1 (USD) per day.  The facility will
have an established system that ensures detainees receive the pay
owed them before being transferred or released.

Judge Bryan finds that the Defendant has not shown that the State
minimum wage provision is expressly preempted.  The Defendant
points to Section 1324a(h)(2) of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act ("IRCA") as expressly preempting the State minimum
wage provision.  Section 1324a(h)(2) prohibits states from
imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ
unauthorized aliens.  He says states cannot penalize employers
for employing unauthorized aliens.  Even if, as the Defendant
argues, the provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act are
construed as "sanctions," they would not be imposed on account of
employers hiring unauthorized aliens, but rather because of the
failure to pay the prevailing minimum wage.  Section 1324a(h)(2)
does not preempt the State minimum wage provision.

The Judge also finds that the Defendant has not shown that the
State minimum wage provision is field preempted.  He says the
Congress has not chosen to occupy the field of detainee wages.
There is no showing that Congress intended for its general
appropriations after 1979 to delegate to ICE the authority to
preempt state law as to detainee wages.  ICE policy on detainee
wages, specifically, the Voluntary Work Program, does not show a
clear agency intent to preempt state law, where there is no
showing that ICE attempted to observe formalities that underlie
its authority to do so.

The Judge further finds that the Defendant's motion to dismiss
based on preemption should be denied.  At first blush the issue
of preemption would seem to favor the Defendant, given the long
history of federal legislation and agency action in the area of
immigration detention generally.  After peeling back the rhetoric
and examining the actual statutes and regulations, on the issue
of detainee wages, an area of traditional state prerogative, he
cannot find evidence of congressional intent -- either express or
implied -- sufficient to overcome the presumption against
preemption.

Finally, Judge Bryan concludes that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim boils down to the argument
that the legislature intended to do something it did not do, or
that it should have done something that it did not do.  The Court
should not re-write legislation.  At least based on the
pleadings, it is plausible that the Plaintiff, arguably, comes
within the State definition of "employee," and is not subject to
any existing statutory exception.

The Defendant has not overcome the presumption against preemption
by showing congressional intent to displace state law as to
detainee wages.  The Complaint states a claim upon which relief
can be granted, because it is plausible that the Plaintiff is an
"employee" under Washington law.

For these reasons, Judge Bryan denied GEO's Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint for Damages.  He directed the Clerk to
send uncertified copies of the Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/z5jplN from Leagle.com.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-
law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Devin T. Theriot-Orr --
devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead --
whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay
Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R.
Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented
by Charles A. Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com --
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Joan K. Mell --
info@3brancheslaw.com -- III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, pro hac vice.


GF MANAGEMENT: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GF Management, Inc.
The case is styled Gertrude Mae Flynn, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v GF Management,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01635-RCM (W.D. Penn., December
19, 2017).

GF Management, Inc. provides hospitality management services for
individual owners, banks, real estate funds, and other
institutional lenders in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


GIGA WATT: Faces Storms Media LLC Suit in E.D. of Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giga Watt Inc. The
case is styled Storms Media LLC, a Louisiana limited liability
company; and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v Giga Watt Inc, a Washington corporation and Giga Watt
PTE LTD, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00438 (E.D. Wash., December 28, 2017).

Giga Watt provides turnkey mining services and custom packages
tailored to clients' needs: full range of mining services from
equipment sales, maintenance and repair to private blockchain
servicing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beth E Terrell, Esq.
   Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
   936 North 34th Street
   Suite 300
   Seattle, WA 98103
   Tel: (206) 816-6603
   Fax: (206) 319-5450
   Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

      - and -

   Blythe H Chandler, Esq.
   Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
   936 North 34th Street
   Suite 300
   Seattle, WA 98103
   Tel: (206) 816-6603
   Email: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com


GIGAMON INC: Bushansky Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A. Hooper, Arthur
W. Coviello, Jr., Ted C. Ho, John H. Kispert, Paul Milbury,
Michael C. Ruettgers, Robert E. Switz, Joan A. Dempsey, and Dario
Zamarian, Case No. 5:17-cv-06842 (N.D. Calif., November 29,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' attempt to sell the
Company to Elliott Management Corporation through Ginsberg
Holdco, Inc. and Ginsberg Merger Sub, Inc., entities formed by
Elliott Associates, L.P. with equity commitments from Elliot
Associates, L.P. and Elliott International, L.P. is designed to
unlawfully divest Gigamon's public stockholders of the Company's
valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders.  To
remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote unless and until such problems are
remedied.

Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Gigamon.

Defendant Gigamon designs, develops and sells products and
services that provide customers with visibility and control of
network traffic.  The Company serves global enterprises,
governments and service providers that seek to maintain and
improve the security, reliability and performance of their
network infrastructure.

The Individual Defendants are members of Gigamon's Board of
Directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GMAC INC: Judgment in Dupreez Operative Counterclaim Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled HENRY JAMES DUPREEZ, JR. v. GMAC, INC., Case
No. 02086 (Md.), Judge Christopher B. Kehoe of the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County in favor of GMAC.

On Oct. 4, 2004, Dupreez purchased a 2004 Silverado Truck from
Bob Bell Chevrolet/Nissan, Inc. for $32,070.  He financed a
portion of the purchase price of the Truck pursuant to a retail
installment sales contract ("RISC") between himself and the
Dealer.  In addition to requiring Dupreez to make monthly
payments, the RISC provided that he would be required to pay late
fees if payments weren't made when due.  As part of the RISC,
Dupreez also purchased a "GAP" policy, the cost of which was
separately itemized.  Additionally, the amended counterclaim
alleged that, as part of the RISC, Dupreez purchased two
mechanical repair warranty insurance policies.

Dupreez had difficulty making the payments.  On several
occasions, GMAC charged and collected late fees from Dupreez.
Eventually, GMAC repossessed the Truck in December 2005.  After
repossessing the Truck, GMAC sent a written notice to Dupreez
that it would sell the Truck unless he paid past due payments,
late charges, and the cost of repossession of the Truck.  The
notice to Dupreez stated that the Truck would be sold at
"Baltimore-Washington Auto Exchange, 751 Brookdale Drive,
Baltimore, Maryland," when in fact the Truck was sold at the
Baltimore-Washington Auto Exchange located at 751 Brookdale
Drive, Elkridge, Maryland.  GMAC applied the proceeds of the sale
toward the amount Dupreez owed, but there was a deficiency.  This
brings to the current litigation.

GMAC filed suit against Dupreez in the District Court of Maryland
for Baltimore County to collect the deficiency, interest, and
attorney's fees plus court costs.  Dupreez prayed a jury trial
and the case was transferred to the circuit court.  He then filed
a class action counterclaim and later an amended class action
counterclaim, which is the pleading that concerns the Court in
the appeal.

In Count 1, Dupreez alleged that GMAC violated the Usury Statute
when it repossessed and subsequently sold the Truck because it
provided incorrect information in its pre-sale notices to
Dupreez.  In Count 2, he alleged that the RISC violated MRISA, by
requiring him to pay late fees, repossession costs, charges for
the repair warranty and debt-cancellation insurance without
specifically itemizing the amounts.  Dupreez also sought
injunctive relief and certification of his counterclaim as a
class action.  In Count 3, the Appellant alleged that the RISC
violated Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, CL Sections 13-101-
501, because the contract violated MRISA.  Count 4 asserted an
unjust enrichment claim, again, based on the premise that the
terms of the RISC violated MRISA, and Count 5 alleged that GMAC
made negligent misrepresentations to appellant.  This claim also
was based upon the premise that the RISC violated MRISA.

Dupreez sought to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
and injunctive relief.  GMAC filed a motion to dismiss the
amended counterclaim.  Among its other contentions, GMAC asserted
that the Usury Statute did not apply to the RISC and that the
terms of the RISC that were challenged by appellant did not
violate MRISA.

The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss on
April 17, 2015.  After oral argument, the circuit court granted
GMAC's motion in part and denied it in part.  Specifically, the
court concluded that the Usury Statute did not apply to the case
because the RISC was not a loan.  Therefore, it dismissed Count 1
in its entirety.  The circuit court also dismissed Counts 2, 3, 4
and 5 insofar as they alleged that GMAC's imposition of late fees
and repossession costs violated MRISA.  The court also dismissed
the portion of the same counts that were based on the allegation
that the RISC charged for a debt cancellation insurance policy
that was purportedly not separately itemized.

However, the court denied GMAC's motion to dismiss in so far as
it related to Dupreez's allegations in Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 that
the RISC did not itemize the cost of the alleged second
mechanical repair contract.  The parties consented to the
dismissal of all outstanding claims with prejudice, thus clearing
the decks for the appeal.

Dupreez presents ten issues and sub-issues in his brief but they
boil down to the following: (i) whether the Usury Statute applies
to the Appellant's contract with the Dealer; and (ii) whether any
of the practices of which appellant complains violated the
relevant terms of MRISA.

Judge Kehoe holds that there is nothing in CL Section 12-
103(c)(1) that suggests that the statute is intended to apply to
anything other than "loans," as that term is used in the Usury
Statute.  Moreover, by 1982, the Court of Appeals had made it
clear on several occasions that the Usury Statute did not apply
to retail installment sales contracts because such contracts were
not "loans."  Hence, the circuit court was correct when it
decided that the allegations in Count 1 of the amended
counterclaim did not set out a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

The Judge also holds that the price of the Truck exceeded the
$25,000 ceiling imposed by MRISA does not mean that GMAC is
prohibited from charging late fees or repossession expenses.  It
means only that MRISA does not regulate GMAC's ability to charge
such fees.  Instead, GMAC's ability to do so is governed by the
Uniform Commercial Code.

In addition, UCC Section 9-601 provides that, upon default, a
secured party not only has the rights granted under the UCC but
also has the rights provided by the agreement of the parties.
The RISC signed by Dupreez explicitly authorized the holder to
assess a 5% late fee.  Therefore, the circuit court was correct
when it concluded that GMAC had the right to charge late fees and
costs of repossession and sale, and did not err in dismissing
Count 2 of the amended counterclaim.

In his amended counterclaim, Dupreez also alleged that GMAC had
violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, CL Sections 13-
101-501.  In Counts 4 and 5, he set out claims for unjust
enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.  Because all of these
claims were premised upon GMAC's asserted violations of MRISA and
the Usury Statute, the Judge holds that the circuit court did not
err in dismissing them.

For these reasons, Judge Kehoe believes that Judge H. Patrick
Stringer, Jr., was correct and affirmed the judgment of the
circuit court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/zRNwWP from Leagle.com.


GSSD INVESTMENT: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime, Lost Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICK LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GSSD INVESTMENT LLC d/b/a DRIVERS AUTO REPAIR, Case
No. 4:17-cv-03623 (S.D. Tex., November 29, 2017), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated
damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

GSSD Investment LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation
headquartered in Harris County, Texas.  GSSD owns and operates 12
Drivers Auto Repair centers, including the Drivers Auto located
in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Keenya R. Harrold, Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  keenya.harrold@kennardlaw.com


HABANA TO GO: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habana to Go
Brooklyn LLC. The case is styled as Luisa Sanchez Solis,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Habana to Go Brooklyn LLC doing business as: Habana
to Go, Habana Brooklyn LLC doing business as: Habana Outpost and
Sean Meenan, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07409 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 20, 2017).

Habana to Go Brooklyn LLC is a Mexican Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HERSHEY CO: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hershey
Company, Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v The Hershey
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10150 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 28, 2017).

The Hershey Company produces chocolates and other snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




HORNAK INC: "Magee" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Scott Magee, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Hornak Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
16843 (E.D. La., December 11, 2017), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text message
activities; all expenses of this action; and such other and
further relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and manages an online booking service for guest
lists at Las Vegas night clubs. It had sent unsolicited text
message and advertising calls, without prior express written
consent, to Magee's cellular telephones while using automatic
telephone dialing equipment, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
             whb@beaumontcostales.com


HUNTINGTON LEARNING: Faces "Dhade" Suit in District of Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huntington Learning
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Herman Dhade, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01834-UNA (D. Del.,
December 20, 2017).

Huntington Learning Center is a chain of educational service
centers in the United States. Huntington is the oldest provider
of supplemental educational services for primary and secondary
students in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert J. Cahall, Esq.
   McCormick & Priore, P.C.
   1000 North West Street, Suite 1200
   Wilmington, DE 19801
   Tel: (302) 295-4895
   Fax: (302) 295-4801
   Email: rcahall@mccormickpriore.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coats" Suit in Central District Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor
Company, Ltd. The case is styled Wallace Coats and James Kinnick,
on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor Company, Ltd., Hyundai Motor America,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-
cv-02208-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2017).

Hyundai Motor Company, Ltd. is an automotive manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are presented by:

   David C Wright, Esq.
   McCune Wright Arevalo LLP
   3281 East Guasti Road Suite 100
   Ontario, CA 91761
   Tel: (909) 557-1250
   Fax: (909) 557-1275
   Email: dcw@mccunewright.com

      - and -

   Richard D McCune, Esq.
   McCune Wright Arevalo LLP
   3281 East Guasti Road Suite 100
   Ontario, CA 91761
   Tel: (909) 557-1250
   Fax: (909) 557-1275
   Email: rdm@mccunewright.com


ICAN BENEFIT: "Ezenwa" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Vivian Ezenwa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ican Benefit Group LLC, Does 1 through 10, Case No.
9:17-cv-81316 (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Vivian Ezenwa is a resident of Houston, Texas.

Defendant, Ican Benefit Group LLC is a marketer of medical
products and medical related financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
      FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
      14 NE First Ave, Suite 1001
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 901-2209
      E-mail: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law


INTEGRITY HOME: Court Needs More Info on "Cooper" Class Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY HOME CARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01293-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, ordered the parties to provide the additional
information she requested on the proposed Settlement Agreement.

Pending before the Court is the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.  The parties
seek Court approval of a comprehensive settlement consisting of
(i) an FLSA collective action opt-in settlement, and (ii) a Rule
23 class action settlement.

After reviewing the proposed Settlement Agreement, Judge Kays
requests further clarification as to the following:

      a. First, the parties explain that if all eligible class
members make claims, $174,405.76 in total payments will be made
to the class.  The Court requests the parties best estimate as to
(i) the percentage and total number of class members that will
make claims (relative to the total number of eligible class
members), and (ii) the total amount -- out of the possible
$174,405.76 -- that will ultimately be paid to the class.

      b. Second, the Court understands the following example to
be an accurate representation of the claims calculation process
for a hypothetical class member: Assuming an hourly rate of $10
dollars per hour, an eligible class member who worked a total of
10 overtime hours between Jan. 1, 2015, and Nov. 12, 2015, would
be paid $37.50 (75% of $50, which is one-half the regular rate of
pay ($5) times the total number of overtime hours (10)).
Third, given the parties' a

      c. Third, given the parties' ability to calculate the
maximum possible payment to the class ($174,405.76), it appears
that the parties are in possession of data specifying the number
of overtime hours that each presumptive class member worked
during the relevant period.  Accordingly, the Court requests
comment on whether it would be more accurate -- and potentially
increase the number of claims made -- to include in each notice
an individualized estimation of the amount that each class member
is entitled to under the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Kays directed the parties to provide the requested
additional information no later than Dec. 18, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aXXRUl from Leagle.com.

Dana Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Bohrer --
Phil@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice.

Dana Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Brady --
Scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice,
Christopher Curtis Shank -- shank@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP & George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com
-- Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP.

Integrity Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tina G.
Fowler -- tfowler@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC &
Katherine A. O'Dell -- kodell@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner
Millsap, PC.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Goldman" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled Yafa Goldman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07376 (E.D.
N.Y., December 19, 2017).

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC operates as a debt solutions
provider of recovery services for consumer charged-off accounts,
credit grantors, and accounts receivable portfolio owners.[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


JENNY & RICHARD'S: Fan Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lu Nan Fan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Jenny & Richard's Inc. d/b/a King Wok;
Shirley's Place, Inc. d/b/a King Wok; Zuo Yao Gao, and "John"
(First Name Unknown) Liu, Case No. 1:17-cv-06963 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 29, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid wages and minimum wages, (2) unpaid
overtime wages, (3) reimbursement for expenses relating to tools
of the trade, (4) liquidated damages, (5) prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and (6) attorneys' fees and costs.

Jenny & Richard's Inc., doing business as King Wok, owns and
operates a Chinese restaurant in Queens located at 225-21 Merrick
Boulevard, in Laurelton, New York.  Shirley's Place Inc., doing
business as King Wok, owns and operates the same Chinese
restaurant located in Laurelton.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers, directors or managing agents of the Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought on behalf of classes of consumers that purchased
Aveeno Active Naturals products in New York, California and
Florida.  Other parties, including Ms. Sweeney, have filed
appeals in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Goldemberg, et al. v. Johnson
& Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-3873, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Objector-Appellant Pamela A. Sweeney of Madison, Wisconsin,
appears pro se.[BN]

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

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

Appellant Ashley Hammack is represented by:

          Stephen D. Field, Esq.
          STEPHEN D. FIELD, P.A.
          102 East 49th Street
          Hialeah, FL 33013
          Telephone: (305) 798-1335
          Facsimile: (305) 698-1930
          E-mail: steve@field-law.com

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

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


KATANGA MINING: Faces "Davis" Securities Class Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KATANGA MINING LIMITED, JOHNNY BLIZZARD, JACQUES
LUBBE, and MATTHEW COLWILL, Case No. 2:17-cv-12188 (D.N.J.,
November 29, 2017), is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Katanga from February 11, 2016,
through November 19, 2017.

Katanga through its subsidiary, Kamoto Copper Company SA, engages
in the copper and cobalt mining and related activities in the
Democratic Republic of Congo.  The Company is incorporated in
Bermuda and its head office is located in Baar, Switzerland.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


KEYBANK NATIONAL: Appeal in "Polito" Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL J. POLITO, an individual, Appellant, v. KEYBANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee, Case No. 4D17-1322 (Fla. Dist.
App.), Judge Robert M. Gross of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Fourth District sua sponte dismissed the appeal
of two counts of a counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.

The litigation began when appellee KeyBank sued appellant Paul
Polito, seeking a deficiency judgment of $34,932, the debt
remaining after Polito's default on a boat loan, followed by the
repossession and sale of the boat.  A two-count second amended
complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, contending that Ohio law applied to actions arising
under the loan agreement.

Polito answered and counterclaimed for damages, seeking class
action relief for deceptive acts concerning the repossession and
sale of consumers' boats.  The counterclaim had five counts:
Count I, Violation Section 9-610, UCC Unlawful repossession of
the boat (KeyBank deprived Borrower and other class members of
substantial rights granted to them under the UCC, including, but
not limited to, the right to obtain a reasonable notification of
disposition that properly discloses their rights upon
repossession). Count II Violation of Section 9-611, UCC Defective
notice of sale Section 1309.611, Ohio Revised Code) (inadequate
notice) KeyBank failed to provide reasonable notice of
disposition of collateral. Count III Violation of Section 9-612,
UCC Defective notice of sale Section 1309.612, Ohio Revised Code)
(timeliness of notice) KeyBank failed to provide reasonable
notice of disposition of collateral.  Count IV Equitable Relief
(Common Law) Unlawful collection KeyBank wrongfully collected
activities and credit and/or reported credit information
reporting (reporting to the CRAs with respect to the derogatory
consumer reports of Borrower and information to other class
members. consumer reporting agencies).  Count V Equitable Relief
(UCC) Unlawful collection KeyBank wrongfully collected activities
and credit and/or reported credit information reporting
(reporting to the CRAs with respect to the derogatory consumer
reports of Borrower and information to other class members.
consumer reporting agencies).

KeyBank moved for summary judgment on counts II and III of the
counterclaim, arguing that the notice of sale comported with Ohio
law.  The circuit court granted KeyBank's motion and entered a
partial final judgment in favor of KeyBank on counts II and III
of the counterclaim.

Judge Gross finds that the jurisdictional problem with the appeal
is that the two dismissed counts are not now appealable.  The
dismissed counts are interdependent with the remaining causes of
action in the counterclaim.  The defective notices of sale form
at least a partial basis for the relief sought in the other
counts.

Also, insofar as Polito would be a class representative on the
counterclaim, counts II and III of the counterclaim arose out of
the seizure and sale of his boat, so they arose out of the
transaction or occurrence that formed the subject matter of the
Plaintiff's claim.  This means that the two counts were
compulsory counterclaims.  The Judge says the Court does not have
jurisdiction because an order dismissing a compulsory
counterclaim is not appealable until a final disposition of the
original cause has been obtained on the merits.

Judge Gross sua sponte dismissed the appeal of two counts of a
counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.  The dismissed counts
intertwine with pending pleaded claims and are compulsory
counterclaims to the original action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nz8Yzw from Leagle.com.

Robert W. Murphy, Fort Lauderdale, and Rebecca J. Covey of
Rebecca J. Covey, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Susan E. Trench -- setrench@arnstein.com -- Alan G. Kipnis --
alan.kipnis@saul.com -- and Steven M. Appelbaum --
smappelbaum@arnstein.com -- of Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Miami, for
appellee.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Precise Leads Must Produce Discovery Docs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEN JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-12920-ADB (D.
Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses from Precise
Leads, Inc.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of individuals claiming violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against Liberty Mutual Group and
Spanish Quotes, Inc., doing business as WeSpeakInsurance.  The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants called or caused him to be
called multiple times in violation of the TCPA, although his
phone number was properly listed on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry and even after he had specifically told Liberty Mutual
that he should not be called again.

Liberty Mutual denies any liability as to the Plaintiff but
asserts in its answer and third-party complaint that, if it is
held liable to the Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual is entitled to
indemnification from Precise Leads, Inc. and Digitas, Inc.,
pursuant to contracts with those companies.  Liberty Mutual also
claims that any damages it owes for TCPA violations were caused
by Precise Leads' and/or Digitas' breaches of contract and/or
negligence.

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to
compel discovery responses from Precise.  The Plaintiff seeks to
compel Precise to produce and describe policies related to
generating leads, providing "warm transfers," or making
solicitation calls for Liberty Mutual.  He argues that if
Precise's policies violate the TCPA, and Liberty Mutual knew,
Liberty Mutual may be vicariously liable.  Moreover, the
requested policies are purportedly relevant to establishing
whether any TCPA violations by Liberty Mutual or Precise were
willful or knowing.

Precise asserts that the policies are not relevant, because it
did not make any telemarketing calls for Liberty Mutual but
rather acted as a lead aggregation intermediary that purchased
leads generated by third parties and then transferred or sold
those leads to others.  Precise also claims that, under a theory
vicarious liability, only policies that were communicated to
Liberty Mutual can be relevant.

Judge Burroughs ordered Precise to respond to Interrogatory Nos.
13 and 14 and to produce, with respect to Document Requests Nos.
22, 23, and 24, policies that relate to activities performed on
behalf of Liberty Mutual by Precise (or by Precise's vendors that
were subject to such policies).  Although Document Request Nos.
26 and 27 are overbroad as written, Precise is ordered to produce
documents and communications that reference the failure, alleged
failure, or possible failure of Precise or its vendors to comply
with Precise's or Liberty Mutual's policies in performing under
the Warm Transfer Agreement.  With respect to Document Request
No. 41, the Judge only ordered Precise to produce responsive
policies that are related or applicable to its engagement with
Liberty Mutual.

With respect to Document Request Nos. 18 and 19, Precise is only
ordered to produce written scripts used by it or its vendors to
generate leads or identify prospective customers for Liberty
Mutual, as well as documents that reflect policies and procedures
related to the preparation of such written scripts.

Judge Burroughs further ordered Precise to produce Document
Request No. 42 but only the responsive documents to the extent
that they reference conduct performed by Precise or its vendors
on behalf of Liberty Mutual.  She says the requested audits and
investigations are relevant to the extent that they address lead
generation and other services performed by Precise or its vendors
under the Warm Transfer Agreement.

Finally, with respect to Document Request No. 35, the Judge
ordered Precise to produce complaints made to Precise regarding
services provided by Precise or its vendors under the Warm
Transfer Agreement.  If all of the responsive documents have
already been produced, Precise will provide a verified response
to that effect.

Consistent with her Opinion, Judge Burroughs granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/kssi5c from Leagle.com.

Ken Johansen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C..

Ken Johansen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
-- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary
Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt &
Willie PLLC, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-
law.com -- The Law Office of Edward A. Broderick & Matthew P.
McCue -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Law Office of Matthew P. McCue.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony A.
Froio -- AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi LLP, Michael Reif -- MReif@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Manleen K. Singh --
MSingh@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.

SPANISH QUOTES, INC., doing business as WESPEAKINSURANCE,
Defendant, represented by Anthony A. Froio, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Anthony A. Froio, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
LLP.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony A. Froio, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Michael
Reif, Robins Kaplan LLP & Manleen K. Singh, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Digitas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by John E. Frey
-- jfrey@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lauren Jaffe, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
Dockterman -- mdockterman@steptoe.com -- Edwards Wildman Palmer
LLP, pro hac vice, Julianne Landsvik -- jlandsvik@steptoe.com --
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Laura Greenberg-Chao, Henshon Klein.

Precise Leads, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Batson -- mbatson@hermesnetburn.com -- Hermes, Netburn,
O'Connor & Spearing & Matthew E. Bown -- mbown@hermesnetburn.com
-- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Anthony
A. Froio, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Michael Reif,
Robins Kaplan LLP & Manleen K. Singh, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi LLP.

SPANISH QUOTES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Koltun, Koltun Law Office & Anthony A. Froio, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Precise Leads, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Michael S.
Batson, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing & Matthew E. Bown,
Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing.


LITHIA MOTORS: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Clayborne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONY CLAYBORNE, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC.,
an Oregon corporation; LITHIA MOTORS SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., an
Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-0588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted in Lithia's part motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff brings the instant putative class action, alleging
violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act, and the
California Labor Code.  He also brings an individual claim for
sexual harassment in violation of California's Fair Employment
and Housing Act.  All of Plaintiff's claims relate to his
employment with the Defendants in Fresno, California.

The Plaintiff alleges that starting on March 24, 2013 and
continuing at least to the date of filing of the Complaint,
Lithia's commissioned California employees were not given paid
rest breaks.  He further alleges that, as a result of the failure
to give paid rest breaks, the Defendants failed to pay the
minimum wage for all hours worked.

Next, he alleges that, starting on March 24, 2016 and continuing
at least to the date of filing of the Complaint, the Defendants
failed to identify the applicable rates of pay on the wage
statements that it issued to all California non-exempt employees.
The Plaintiff also seeks to recover penalties based upon the same
failure under California's Private Attorney General Act, on
behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees.

Separate from the collective claims set out, the Plaintiff
alleges an individual claim for sexual harassment.  He alleges
that on Oct. 22, 2016, his coworker took a photo of him and a
second coworker which taken in a manner that made it appear that
the second coworker was performing oral sex on him.  The photo
was captioned and distributed to unknown recipients via text
message and snapchat.  On the same date, his desk manager made a
lewd, sexual joke, also making reference to his slight weight.
The Plaintiff's general manager also made references to his
weight and joked about his mother.  The following day, the
Plaintiff complained about the alleged misconduct to the Branch
Manager.

The Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement regarding claims
arising out of his employment with Lithia, on Jan. 21, 2016,
which prohibits collective arbitration.  The Arbitration
Agreement further provides that the arbitration will be
controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and that the
arbitrator will have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute
relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or
formation of the Arbitration agreement.

Lithia moves to stay or dismiss the action in light of the
arbitration agreement that the parties entered into as a
condition of the Plaintiff's employment.  The Plaintiff opposes
that motion on the grounds that the arbitration agreement is in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, unconscionable,
and otherwise unenforceable.

Judge Ishii explains that if a very strong showing of substantive
unconscionability is made the showing of procedural
unconscionability would be sufficient for the Court to conclude
that the delegation clause is unconscionable and should not be
enforced.  Also, whether or not Lithia provided the Plaintiff
with a copy of the rules of arbitration has no impact on whether
the Plaintiff's agreement that the arbitrator, rather than the
Court, will decide the arbitrability of the claims was a product
of surprise or oppression.  Because the delegation clause is
clear and unmistakable and not substantively unconscionable, it
is enforceable.  The Plaintiff will be compelled, pursuant to
Section 4 of the FAA, to arbitrate the threshold question of
arbitrability.

Based on this, Judge Ishiii granted in part motion to compel
arbitration.  The action is stayed as to all parties and claims.
All causes of action alleged in the Plaintiff's complaint will be
submitted to the arbitrator for the arbitrator to make the
threshold arbitrability determination regarding those claims.
The Plaintiff and Lithia will be required to provide joint status
updates every 60 days until the arbitrator resolves the threshold
question.  Within 14 days of the arbitrator's determination of
arbitrability, they must submit a joint status update, informing
the Court of the arbitrator's determination, as set out in
Section IV(E).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5ZFqLh from Leagle.com.

Tony Clayborne, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen M. Agnew --
kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC.

Tony Clayborne, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group & William Lucas
Marder --     bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Lithia Motors, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Joseph Mailhot -- amailhot@daviswanglaw.com
-- Davis Wang, Courtney J. Rogerson -- crogerson@daviswanglaw.com
-- Davis Wang & Shirley Chienhsi Wang -- swang@daviswanglaw.com -
- Davis Wang.

Lithia Motors Support Services, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Joseph Mailhot, Davis Wang, Courtney J.
Rogerson, Davis Wang & Shirley Chienhsi Wang, Davis Wang.


LOUISIANA: Court Allows SPL to Rejoin Tax Exemptions Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JMCB, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. THE BOARD OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY;
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; AND SABINE PASS
LIQUEFACATION, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-77-JWD-JCW (M.D. La.),
Judge John W. deGravelles of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana (i) granted Sabine's Motion to
Reconsider Order and Vacate Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal or, in the Alternative, Motion to Intervene; (ii)
granted the Consolidated Motion for Clarification of the
Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) or
12(f) and Motion for Joinder of Party Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and 19 filed by Defendants the Board of
Commerce and Industry and the Louisiana Department of Economic
Development ("LDED") ("State Defendants"); and (iii) denied
without prejudice the State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain
Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Article VII, Section 21(F) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974
provides that the Board, with approval from the governor, may
enter into contracts for the exemption from ad valorem taxes of a
new manufacturing establishment or an addition to an existing
manufacturing establishment, on such terms and conditions as the
Board, with the approval of the governor, deem in the best
interest of the state.

The Plaintiff alleges in its Class Action Petition that it
currently owns property land in Cameron Parish which is subject
to ad valorem taxes for which no exemption is available.  The
Petition further claims that SPL applied for and entered into a
contract with the State Defendants for the tax exemptions.
According to the Petition, a LDED worksheet recommending approval
during the process stated that the contract amount was $6 billion
and that the ad valorem tax was $1,447,200,000.

The Plaintiff now prays for a judgment declaring that the
contract between the State Defendants and SPL is, for certain
reasons, an improper act of the Board in violation of Article
VII, Section 21(F), and declaring that the Contract is null and
void and without legal effect.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
asserts that SPL submitted an application to LDED that said that
it was applying for an exemption under the addition to an
existing manufacturing establishment provision of Article VII,
Section 21(F), when, in fact, SPL did not have an existing
manufacturing plant or establishment of any kind at the project
location at the time the Board considered its Application.  It
also alleges that SPL's facility does not satisfy the definition
of manufacturing establishment or addition detailed.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of itself and as
representatives of the class defined as any and all individuals
and businesses that own property in Cameron Parish, State of
Louisiana that is subject to ad valorem taxation, and any and all
Cameron Parish governmental bodies that are entitled to receive
Cameron Parish ad valorem property taxes, as of Oct. 12, 2016.

The Plaintiff originally named SPL as a Defendant.  After the
suit was removed, it Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of SPL
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which the Court
granted on April 5, 2017.

Before the Court are three motions: (i) SPL's Motion to
Intervene; (ii) State Defendants' Motion for Clarification and
Motion to Join; and (ii) the Motion to Dismiss by the State
Defendants.  All three motions are opposed, and reply memoranda
have been filed.

SPL and the State Defendants essentially ask that SPL be allowed
to join the case, either as a necessary party under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 19 or through intervention (either of right or permissive)
under Rule 24.  They thus request that the Court vacates its
earlier order allowing the Plaintiff to dismiss SPL.

Putting aside the questions of whether the notice of dismissal
operated automatically without the need for the order and the
question of whether the Court can vacate that notice, Judge
deGravelles says the first key question before him is whether a
necessary or indispensable party can be joined despite a notice
of dismissal.  The short answer is it can.  The second critical
question is whether SPL must or can be joined under Rules 19 or
24.  He finds that joinder is required under either provision
based on the plain language of the rules and relevant case law.

The Judge finds that SPL and the State Defendants have
demonstrated that SPL must be joined in the case.  The Court's
previous order dismissing SPL, even though unnecessary to begin
with, was, under these peculiar circumstances, manifestly unjust.
Therefore, the Judge set aside the Plaintiff's notice of
dismissal, and vacated the Court's April 5, 2017, order
dismissing SPL from the case.  SPL will be joined in the action
as a Defendant either as a necessary and indispensable party
under Rule 19 or through intervention (of right and permissive)
under Rule 24.

Since SPL has now re-joined the suit, Judge deGravelles believes
that the Plaintiff should file a First Amended Complaint
identifying what precise claims are still in the case, including
what claims remain against SPL.  He believes this is appropriate
given the shifting procedural posture of the litigation and the
confusion surrounding the pleadings.  The Plaintiff is given 28
days in which to file an amended complaint clarifying the claims
against the parties.

Finally, in light of the Plaintiff's upcoming amended complaint,
the State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is denied without
prejudice.  They may re-urge the same arguments, if necessary,
after the Plaintiff submits its amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6aHHyV from Leagle.com.

JMCB, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Wayne Pendley --
pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

JMCB, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Andrew Eddington,
Christopher D. Shows, Pierce & Shows, Stanley P. Baudin --
sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Troy D.
Morain, Morain & Murphy.

The Board of Commerce & Industry, Defendant, represented by
Shelton Dennis Blunt -- dennis.blunt@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar,
LLP, Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr. -- paul.leblanc@phelps.com --
Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Brandon Stanley -- jack.stanley@phelps.com --
Phelps Dunbar LLP & Richard Earold Matheny --
richard.matheny@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Defendant,
represented by Shelton Dennis Blunt, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Alfred
Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Jack Brandon Stanley,
Phelps Dunbar LLP & Richard Earold Matheny, Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, Intervenor Defendant, represented
by Brett S. Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP.


MAJOR LEAGUE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Payne" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GAIL PAYNE and STEPHANIE SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL,
DBA Major League Baseball; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
16-17131 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Payne and
Smith's class action complaint for lack of standing.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
concluding that Smith and Payne failed to demonstrate the injury-
in-fact element of Article III standing.  Smith cannot
demonstrate a "certainly impending" or "substantial risk" of
future injury from a foul ball because she does not plan to
attend any future ball game unless she is sitting in a location
that is screened by a net.  Payne has not offered evidence or
statistical analysis indicating she faces a significantly greater
likelihood of injury than 0.0027%, let alone that she faces a
"certainly impending" injury.

The Court also rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that their
general anxiety about being injured by foul balls constitutes an
injury-in-fact, because it is based on fears of hypothetical
future harm that is not certainly impending.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejects Smith and Payne's argument
that inadequate safety precautions at baseball games interfere
with their recreational use of their baseball tickets, and such
interference constitutes an injury-in-fact.  A person does not
suffer an invasion of a legally protected interest solely because
the owner of a facility open to the public has failed to
implement a particular safety measure.  Cases concerning
individuals' use of public natural resources that are threatened
by business operations are inapposite and therefore insufficient
to meet the Plaintiffs' burden to show they have standing.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/plegM9 from Leagle.com.


MARATHON OIL: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-03662
(S.D. Tex., December 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Daniel Edwards worked for Defendant as a Logistics
Coordinator from approximately October 2014 until August 2016.
Throughout his employment with Defendant, he was paid a day-rate
with no overtime compensation and was classified as an
independent contractor.

Defendant Marathon is a global oil and gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the United
States, including in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MBF LEASING: Settlement in RICO Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAINBOW BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.; et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MBF LEASING LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-
cv-01993-CW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,

The Class Representatives have moved the Court for final approval
of a proposed class action settlement, the terms and conditions
of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed with the
Court on July 5, 2017, as amended on Aug. 2, 2017 and Oct. 27,
2017.  The Leasing Defendants have joined in the motion.

Having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing on
the motion and otherwise, including the complete record of this
action, and good cause appearing therefor, Judge Wilken finally
certified the Settlement Class of all persons and businesses (i)
who from March 26, 2006 to the present paid any Leasing
Defendants property taxes based on a cost greater than the
"equipment cost" or (ii) whose lease numbers appeared on Schedule
1.

The Judge reaffirmed the appointment of and finally appointed
Rainbow Business Solutions; Dietz Towing, Inc.; The Rose Dress,
Inc.; Volker Von Glasenapp; Terry Jordan; and Erin Campbell as
the Class Representatives, and Gutride Safier LLP as the Class
Counsel.

Objector Guoxin Xing, owner of HD Auto-1 LLC, filed a written
objection and appeared at the Final Approval Hearing.  The Jude
granted his request to file his objection on Nov. 3, 2017, three
days after the deadline.  Also, he submitted an additional
written objection at the Final Approval Hearing, which the Court
has considered.  The Court will file Guoxin Xing's additional
written objection, submitted at the hearing, under seal because
it pervasively includes and attaches information such as
financial account numbers subject to protection under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Guoxin Xing describes problems that he allegedly has had with
Northern Leasing that are not part of the class litigation and
that, as discussed at the Final Approval Hearing, are not
addressed or released by the settlement and may be the subject of
a new lawsuit.  His letter does not identify any problems with
the settlement nor describe any claims involving either the SKS
Post-Lease Expiration Class or the Property Tax Equipment Cost
Basis Class.  As his objection does not relate to the merits of
the settlement, it is overruled by the Judge.

The other objector, William Kaufman, objects that the settlement
is an "abuse of the class action process" on the ground that the
suit does not result in a measurable benefit.  But Mr. Kaufman
does not dispute, that the lawsuit (i) prevented the Defendants
from collecting at least $7 million from SKS class members, and
(ii) makes an additional $9.2 million in cash benefits available
to class members who submit claims.  He also objects that he
could not determine if he was a class member, but contact
information for class counsel and the claim administrator was
provided to him in the notice.  Finally, he objects that the
notice did not contain instructions on how to write to the court
to object, but Judge Wilken has reviewed the notice, and finds
that it did.  His objections are overruled.

The claims based on the allegations described in section 1.5 of
the Settlement Agreement are released only by the Named
Plaintiffs, not by Settlement Class Members.

For the reasons stated in the separate Order on the Class
Counsel's Application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs
and incentives, Judge Wilken directed the Leasing Defendants to
pay the Class Counsel $1,600,000 in fees and expenses and will
pay incentive awards as follows:

   (i) Jerry Su and Rainbow Business Solutions, collectively:
$5,000;

  (ii) Gary Jordan and Dietz Towing, Inc., collectively - $5,000;

(iii) Volker Von Glasenapp - $5,000; and

  (iv) Erin Campbell - $5,000.

In addition, the Leasing Defendants will pay Verena Baumgartner,
doing business as Burlingame Motors, $2,500, and the Estate of
Lewis Bae and The Rose Dress, Inc., collectively, $2,500, in
consideration for the release of their individual claims as set
forth in the Order.  All these amounts will be paid according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Without further order of the Court, the parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.  The Judge ordered the Clerk of the Court
to enter judgment and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6YjzeW from Leagle.com.

Rainbow Business Services, doing business as Precision Tune Auto
Care, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Rainbow Business Services, doing business as Precision Tune Auto
Care, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Gelinas Simplicio --
risten@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Marie Ann McCrary
-- marie@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam
Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP & Todd
Michael Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Volker Von Glasenapp, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride,
Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier
LLP, Marie Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier,
Gutride Safier LLP & Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

Jerry Su, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier
LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP, Marie Ann
McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP
& Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

Dietz Towing Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride
Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP, Marie
Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier
LLP & Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

The Rose Dress Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride,
Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier
LLP, Marie Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier,
Gutride Safier LLP & Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

Verena Baumgartner, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride,
Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier
LLP, Marie Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier,
Gutride Safier LLP & Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

Terry Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride
Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP, Marie
Ann McCrary, Gutride Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier
LLP & Todd Michael Kennedy, Gutride Safier LLP.

Lewis Bae, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier
LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP & Seth Adam
Safier, Gutride Safier LLP.

Erin Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride
Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP & Seth
Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP.

Merchant Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by Cary Donahue
Sullivan -- carysullivan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Brian D.
Hershman -- bhershman@jonesday.com -- Kevin Hugh Logan --
jlogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Thomas Reed Malcolm, Jones Day
& Travis Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Universal Card, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cary Donahue
Sullivan, Jones Day, Brian D. Hershman, Kevin Hugh Logan, Jones
Day, Thomas Reed Malcolm, Jones Day & Travis Biffar, Jones Day.

National Payment Processing, Defendant, represented by Cary
Donahue Sullivan, Jones Day, Brian D. Hershman, Kevin Hugh Logan,
Jones Day, Thomas Reed Malcolm, Jones Day & Travis Biffar, Jones
Day.

MBF Leasing LLC, Defendant, represented by Rod Divelbiss --
rdivelbiss@jralp.com -- JRA Law Partners, LLP, Abraham Y. Skoff -
- askoff@mosessinger.com -- Moses Singer, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Nigro, Moses & Singer LLP, pro hac vice, John Vincent Erickson,
JRA Law Partners LLP, John Merrill Heaphy, III --
jheaphy@harrisonheld.com -- Harrison and Held, LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert Lillienstein -- rlillienstein@mosessinger.com -- Moses
Singer LLP, pro hac vice, Scott E. Silberfein --
ssilberfein@mosessinger.com -- Moses and Singer LLP & Thomas J.
Kavaler -- tkavaler@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP.

Northern Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rod Divelbiss,
JRA Law Partners, LLP, Abraham Y. Skoff, Moses Singer, pro hac
vice, Jennifer Nigro, Moses & Singer LLP, pro hac vice, John
Vincent Erickson, JRA Law Partners LLP, Robert Lillienstein,
Moses Singer LLP, pro hac vice, Scott E. Silberfein, Moses and
Singer LLP & Thomas J. Kavaler, Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP.

Jay Cohen, Defendant, represented by Rod Divelbiss, JRA Law
Partners, LLP, Abraham Y. Skoff, Moses Singer, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Nigro, Moses & Singer LLP, pro hac vice, John Vincent
Erickson, JRA Law Partners LLP, Robert Lillienstein, Moses Singer
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott E. Silberfein, Moses and Singer LLP &
Thomas J. Kavaler, Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP.

Sara Krieger, Defendant, represented by Rod Divelbiss, JRA Law
Partners, LLP, Abraham Y. Skoff, Moses Singer, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Nigro, Moses & Singer LLP, pro hac vice, John Vincent
Erickson, JRA Law Partners LLP, Robert Lillienstein, Moses Singer
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott E. Silberfein, Moses and Singer LLP &
Thomas J. Kavaler, Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP.

Jason Moore, Defendant, represented by Cary Donahue Sullivan,
Jones Day, Brian D. Hershman, Kevin Hugh Logan, Jones Day, Thomas
Reed Malcolm, Jones Day & Travis Biffar, Jones Day.

Sam Buono, Defendant, represented by Rod Divelbiss, JRA Law
Partners, LLP, Abraham Y. Skoff, Moses Singer, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Nigro, Moses & Singer LLP, pro hac vice, John Vincent
Erickson, JRA Law Partners LLP, Robert Lillienstein, Moses Singer
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott E. Silberfein, Moses and Singer LLP &
Thomas J. Kavaler, Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP.

Fiona Walshe, Defendant, represented by Matthew Keenan Wegner,
Brown Wegner McNamara LLP, James Cai, SAC Attorneys LLP, Janet
Suejean Park, Matrix Service Company, Matthew Allen Berliner,
Brown Wegner Berliner LLP & Seth Wesley Wiener, Law Offices of
Seth W. Wiener.


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled Antoine Dixon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCarthy,
Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07388 (E.D.
N.Y., December 19, 2017).

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff (MB&W) is one of the premier collection
agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MDL 2541: $209MM Antitrust Class Settlement Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: ALL ACTIONS EXCEPT DEPT Jenkins v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n Case No. 4:14-cv-02758-CW, Case No. 4:14-md-2541-
CW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,
granted final approval to the Settlement Agreement, as amended by
the parties' stipulations filed on March 1, 2017 and March 21,
2017.

The Plaintiffs seek final approval of a settlement that provides
for payment of approximately 50% of the classes' single damages
claims after fees and expenses are deducted.  The settlement
agreement is the result of extensive litigation and arm's-length
negotiations between the parties.

The Defendants agree to pay $208,664,445, which (after deduction
of fees and expenses) will be disbursed to student-athletes who
attended Division I schools that the Plaintiffs' evidence shows
would have awarded the full cost of attendance at those schools
("COA"), but for the NCAA bylaw in effect until Jan. 1, 2015,
that capped the maximum grant-in-aid ("GIA") at less than COA.
The average recovery for a class member who played his or her
sport for four years would be approximately $6,000.  After final
approval of the proposed settlement, each impacted class member
with calculated damages will be mailed a check, with no claim
form required and no right of any reversion of funds to
defendants.

Judge Wilken granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement.  The Settlement resolves claims on behalf of these
Settlement Classes:

     a. Division I FBS Football Class: All current and former
NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision ("FBS") football
student-athletes who, at any time from March 5, 2010 through the
date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, received from an
NCAA member institution for at least one academic term (such as a
semester or quarter) a Full Athletics Grant-In-Aid.

     b. Division I Men's Basketball Class: All current and former
NCAA Division I men's basketball student-athletes who, at any
time from March 5, 2010 through the date of Preliminary Approval
of this Settlement, received from an NCAA member institution for
at least one academic term (such as a semester or quarter) a Full
Athletics Grant-In-Aid.

     c. Division I Women's Basketball Class: All current and
former NCAA Division I women's basketball student-athletes who,
at any time from March 5, 2010 through the date of Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement, received from an NCAA member
institution for at least one academic term (such as a semester or
quarter) a Full Athletics Grant-In-Aid.

The Judge preliminarily certified the three Settlement Classes
for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e).  No objection to
certification of those Settlement Classes has been filed.  He
certified those three classes for settlement purposes only.

The Judge finds that the Settlement Agreement's Distribution Plan
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The Distribution Plan
provides monetary recovery in some form, on a pro rata basis
based on the gap between the athletic GIA allowed prior to Aug.
1, 2015 and full COA at each school that provided or indicated by
or before June 1, 2017 an intent to start providing any portion
of that gap to at least one Class Member at their school.  She
also notes that there is no reversion of the Net Settlement Fund,
maximizing the amount of payments to Settlement Class Members.
Accordingly, with the changes noted, the Plan of Allocation is
approved.

As of the Settlement Agreement's Effective Date, the Releasors
will release the Releasees from any and all past, present and
future claims, demands, rights, actions, suits, or causes of
action, for monetary damages of any kind (including but not
limited to actual damages, statutory damages, and exemplary or
punitive damages), whether class, individual or otherwise in
nature, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, suspected or
unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, contingent or non-
contingent, under the laws of any jurisdiction, which Releasors
or any of them, whether directly, representatively, derivatively,
or in any other capacity, ever had, now have or hereafter can,
will or may have, arising out of or relating in any way to any of
the legal, factual, or other allegations made in the Plaintiffs'
Actions, or any legal theories that could have been raised on the
allegations in the Plaintiffs' Actions.  The Released Claims do
not include claims solely for prospective injunctive relief and
certain other claims expressly excluded from the release as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  Indeed, the injunctive class
claims in the litigation are still pending and not part of the
Settlement Agreement.

As of the Effective Date, (i) the Releasees will be discharged
and released from all Released Claims; (i) the Releasors will be
permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting
any of the Released Claims; and (iii) the Settlement Agreement
and the Final Approval Order and Judgment will be binding on and
have res judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future
lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed by the Released Claims
maintained by or on behalf of the Releasors, as well as their
agents, heirs, executors or administrators, successors, insurers
and assigns.

Judge Wilken dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims
for damages, and except as provided for in the Order, without
costs.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), he
determines that there is no just reason for delay and directs
that the Judgment as to the claims for damages will be final and
entered forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JhlX1x from Leagle.com.

Shawne Alston, Plaintiff, represented by Jon T. King --
jking@hausfeldllp.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shawne Alston, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley A. Bede, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Craig Ripley
Spiegel --     craigs@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, David G. Feher -- dfeher@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, David L. Greenspan -- dgreenspan@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Derek G. Howard, Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc.,
Derek J. Sarafa -- derek@derekhowardlaw.com -- Winston and Strawn
LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian -- jparsigian@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Jack
Wing Lee -- jackwlee101@gmail.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler --
jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart --
jstewart@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, Joseph A. Litman
-- jlitman@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Robert B. Carey --
ROB@HBSSLAW.COM -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean D.
Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Sean Tamura-
Sato -- seant@minamitamaki.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP, Steve W.
Berman -- STEVE@HBSSLAW.COM -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas Kay Boardman -- TBOARDMAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM --
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP & William James Newsom --
wnewsom@cooley.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Martin Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter --
jrichter@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David
L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ian L. Papendick --
ipapendick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa Steedle
Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn &
Sean Gerald Wieber -- swieber@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.

Johnathan Moore, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa
Steedle Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and
Strawn, Sean Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Kevin Perry, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, David G.
Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ian
L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian,
Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa Steedle Bogad,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn, Sean
Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

William Tyndall, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa
Steedle Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and
Strawn, Sean Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Alex Lauricella, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Dugan, II,
The Dugan Law Firm, Chad Joseph Primeaux, The Dugan Law Firm,
APLC, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David Baylis Franco,
The Dugan Law Firm, APLC, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, David Scott Scalia, Dugan Law Firm, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston
and Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Sharrif Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J.
Wecker -- bwecker@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel S. Mason,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP, Daniel Simon Mason --
dmason@fsmllaw.com -- Furth Salem Mason & Li LLP, David G. Feher,
Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer
-- hscherrer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer
Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao
Athena Hou, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and
Strawn, Lee A. Hutton, III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP,
Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J. Looby,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin -- sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn, Shawn D.
Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla --
sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Kyle Theret, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J. Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Christopher
L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel Simon Mason, Furth Salem Mason & Li
LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and
Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Lee A. Hutton,
III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J.
Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn, Shawn D. Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla, Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Duane Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J. Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Christopher
L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel Simon Mason, Furth Salem Mason & Li
LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and
Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Lee A. Hutton,
III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J.
Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn, Shawn D. Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla, Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Pacific 12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Bart Harper
Williams -- bwilliams@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, Jacquelyn
Nicole Ferry -- jferry@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Jennifer L. Jones -- jljones@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Joseph C. O'Keefe -- jokeefe@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Kyle Alexander Casazza -- kcasazza@proskauer.com  -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Lawrence R. Sandak -- lsandak@proskauer.com --
Proskauer & Rose LLP, Manuel Francisco Cachan --
mcachan@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Scott P. Cooper --
scooper@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Shawn Scott
Ledingham, Jr. -- sledingham@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Wanda L. Ellert -- wellert@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP &
William L. Greene -- william.greene@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.

The Big Ten Conference, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher John Kelly -- cjkelly@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Andrew S. Rosenman -- arosenman@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller -- bmiller@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Michael Martinez -- michael.martinez@mayerbrown.com --
Mayer Brown LLP & Richard J. Favretto -- rfavretto@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP.

Southeastern Conference, Defendant, represented by Nathan Clifton
Chase, Jr. -- nchase@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, Amanda R. Pickens -- apickens@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, pro hac vice, John A. Boyle --
jboyle@khmarino.com -- Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC, Kevin Harry
Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC,
Lawrence C. Moore, III -- lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson, Bradshaw and Hinson, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark J.
Seifert -- info@seifertfirm.com -- Seifert Law Firm, Pearlynn G.
Houck -- phouck@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw Hinson,
Robert Walker Fuller, III -- rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson Bradshaw Hinson, P.A. & Robert Evans Harrington --
rharrington@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw Hinson, PA.

Atlantic Coast Conference, Defendant, represented by Charles
Lagrange Coleman, III -- ccoleman@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight
LLP, Adanna M. Love -- alove@medallia.com -- Charles Bailey King,
Jr. -- bailey.king@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood
LLP, David Erik Albright -- erik.albright@smithmoorelaw.com --
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, Duvol Thompson --
Duvol.Thompson@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP, James Donald
Smeallie -- jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP,
Jonathan P. Heyl -- jon.heyl@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore
Leatherwood LLP & Sean C. Sheely -- sean.sheely@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP.

The Big Twelve Conference, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wesley
Douglas Hurst -- whurst@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli LLP, Amy
Dawn Fitts -- afitts@polsinelli.com -- Caitlin Jemilha Morgan --
cmorgan@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli, PC, Leane K. Capps --
lcapps@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Matthew P. O'Malley --
momalley@tompkinsmcguire.com -- Tompkins McGuirem Wachenfeld &
Barry LLP & Milton Winter -- mwinter@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
PC.

National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, represented
by Beth Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON
WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Alexandra M. Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON
WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP, Anthony J. Dreyer, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Brian L. Stekloff --
bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP,
Gregory L. Curtner -- gcurtner@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes
& Cancila LLP, Jacob Klein Danziger -- jdanziger@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A. Mishkin --
jeffrey.mishkin@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom
LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Hoffman Lent -- karen.lent@skadden.com -
- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Rakesh
Kilaru -- rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON WALSH +
ESKOVITZ LLP, Robert James Wierenga -- rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Sean Eskovitz --
seskovitz@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz LLP.

Conference USA, Defendant, represented by Leane K. Capps,
Polsinelli PC, Amy Dawn Fitts, Caitlin Jemilha Morgan,
Polsinelli, PC & Milton Winter, Polsinelli PC.

American Athletic Conference, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
C. Block -- bblock@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, Lindsey
Catherine Barnhart -- lbarnhart@cov.com -- Covington Burling LLP
& Rebecca Ariel Jacobs -- rjacobs@cov.com -- Covington and
Burling LLP.

Mid-American Conference, Defendant, represented by Andrew B.
Downs -- andy.downs@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC,
Robert Todd Hunt -- rthunt@walterhav.com -- Walter Haverfield LLP
& Benjamin G. Chojnacki -- bchojnacki@walterhav.com -- Walter
Haverfield LLP.

Mountain West Conference, Defendant, represented by Meryl Macklin
-- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Richard Young -
- richard.young@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Brent Rychener
-- brent.rychener@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


MDL 2541: $42M Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: ALL ACTIONS EXCEPT DEPT Jenkins v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n Case No. 4:14-cv-02758-CW, Case No. 4:14-md-2541-
CW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,
granted the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel's request for
$41,732,889 in attorneys' fees (20% of the settlement fund),
$3,184,274.38 in expenses and costs, and $20,000 service awards
for the four class representatives.

The Plaintiffs seek final approval of a settlement that provides
for payment of approximately 50% of the classes' single damages
claims after fees and expenses are deducted.  The settlement
agreement is the result of extensive litigation and arm's-length
negotiations between the parties.

The Defendants agree to pay $208,664,445, which (after deduction
of fees and expenses) will be disbursed to student-athletes who
attended Division I schools that the Plaintiffs' evidence shows
would have awarded the full cost of attendance at those schools
("COA"), but for the NCAA bylaw in effect until Jan. 1, 2015,
that capped the maximum grant-in-aid ("GIA") at less than COA.
The average recovery for a class member who played his or her
sport for four years would be approximately $6,000.  After final
approval of the proposed settlement, each impacted class member
with calculated damages will be mailed a check, with no claim
form required and no right of any reversion of funds to
defendants.

The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel request: (i) an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $41,732,889, which is exactly
20% of the $208,664,445 million settlement fund; (ii)
reimbursement of $3,184,274.38 in expenses and costs the
Plaintiffs' counsel have advanced to date on behalf of the class;
and (iii) service awards of $20,000 each for the four class
representatives.

Judge Wilken finds that the 25% benchmark award is presumptively
reasonable, reflecting a market based fee.  A 20% fee is
justified by (i) the exceptional results achieved; (ii) the
significant risk borne by the Plaintiffs' counsel and the
complexity of issues in the case; and (iii) the contingent nature
of the representation and the efforts and costs expended by the
Plaintiffs' counsel.  A 20% fee accords with fee awards in
analogous cases.  The Plaintiffs' counsel achieved an exceptional
result for the classes, expended significant resources on behalf
of the classes, and their reputation, ability, and efficiency
supports the requested fee.  Accordingly, the Judge awarded the
attorneys' fees requested in an amount of 20% of the fund
recovered for the classes.

The Judge also finds that the class counsel's expenses are
reasonable and were necessarily incurred.  The $3,184,274.38 in
expenses was necessarily and reasonably incurred to achieve this
$208 million dollar recovery, and they reflect market rates for
the various categories of expenses incurred.  And the Plaintiffs'
counsel advanced these necessary expenses, interest-free, without
assurance that they would even be recouped.  Therefore, the Judge
granted the requested reimbursement of expenses.

Judge Wilken granted a service award of $20,000 to each of the
four class representatives.  He says the class representatives
spent a significant amount of time assisting in the litigation of
the case, in preparing for and having their depositions taken, in
searching for and producing documents that spanned many years,
and in conferring with counsel throughout the litigation.  Awards
of $20,000 each are consistent with service awards in other
cases.

Finally, the Judge overruled the sole objection filed by Darrin
Duncan.  The attorneys' fees and service awards sought by the
Plaintiffs and their counsel are reasonable.  In addition, there
is no merit to Mr. Duncan's request that the Court order that the
claims administrator distributes class funds until each class
member would receive less than $3.  Mr. Duncan provides no legal
or factual basis for that request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zRMyj2 from Leagle.com.

Shawne Alston, Plaintiff, represented by Jon T. King --
jking@hausfeldllp.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shawne Alston, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley A. Bede, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Craig Ripley
Spiegel --     craigs@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, David G. Feher -- dfeher@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, David L. Greenspan -- dgreenspan@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Derek G. Howard, Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc.,
Derek J. Sarafa -- derek@derekhowardlaw.com -- Winston and Strawn
LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian -- jparsigian@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Jack
Wing Lee -- jackwlee101@gmail.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler --
jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart --
jstewart@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, Joseph A. Litman
-- jlitman@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Robert B. Carey --
ROB@HBSSLAW.COM --, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean D.
Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Sean Tamura-
Sato -- seant@minamitamaki.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP, Steve W.
Berman -- STEVE@HBSSLAW.COM -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas Kay Boardman -- TBOARDMAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM --
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP & William James Newsom --
wnewsom@cooley.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Martin Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter --
jrichter@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David
L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ian L. Papendick --
ipapendick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa Steedle
Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn &
Sean Gerald Wieber -- swieber@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.

Johnathan Moore, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa
Steedle Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and
Strawn, Sean Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Kevin Perry, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, David G.
Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ian
L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian,
Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa Steedle Bogad,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn, Sean
Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

William Tyndall, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Richter,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Melissa
Steedle Bogad, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and
Strawn, Sean Gerald Wieber, Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Alex Lauricella, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Dugan, II,
The Dugan Law Firm, Chad Joseph Primeaux, The Dugan Law Firm,
APLC, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David Baylis Franco,
The Dugan Law Firm, APLC, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, David Scott Scalia, Dugan Law Firm, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston
and Strawn LLP, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Sharrif Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J.
Wecker -- bwecker@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel S. Mason,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP, Daniel Simon Mason --
dmason@fsmllaw.com -- Furth Salem Mason & Li LLP, David G. Feher,
Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer
-- hscherrer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer
Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao
Athena Hou, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and
Strawn, Lee A. Hutton, III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP,
Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J. Looby,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin -- sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan, Winston and Strawn, Shawn D.
Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla --
sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Kyle Theret, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J. Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Christopher
L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel Simon Mason, Furth Salem Mason & Li
LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and
Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Lee A. Hutton,
III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J.
Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn, Shawn D. Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla, Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Duane Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J. Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Christopher
L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel Simon Mason, Furth Salem Mason & Li
LLP, David G. Feher, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek J. Sarafa, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Hausfeld, LLP, Jason S. Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and
Strawn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph A. Litman, Winston and Strawn, Lee A. Hutton,
III, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Michelle J.
Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Hellmuth &
Johnson, PLLC, Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Sean D. Meenan,
Winston and Strawn, Shawn D. Stuckey, Zelle Hoffmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Swathi Bojedla, Hausfeld LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Pacific 12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Bart Harper
Williams -- bwilliams@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, Jacquelyn
Nicole Ferry -- jferry@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Jennifer L. Jones -- jljones@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Joseph C. O'Keefe -- jokeefe@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Kyle Alexander Casazza -- kcasazza@proskauer.com  -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Lawrence R. Sandak -- lsandak@proskauer.com --
Proskauer & Rose LLP, Manuel Francisco Cachan --
mcachan@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Scott P. Cooper --
scooper@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Shawn Scott
Ledingham, Jr. -- sledingham@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Wanda L. Ellert -- wellert@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP &
William L. Greene -- william.greene@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.

The Big Ten Conference, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher John Kelly -- cjkelly@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Andrew S. Rosenman -- arosenman@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller -- bmiller@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Michael Martinez -- michael.martinez@mayerbrown.com --
Mayer Brown LLP & Richard J. Favretto -- rfavretto@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP.

Southeastern Conference, Defendant, represented by Nathan Clifton
Chase, Jr. -- nchase@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, Amanda R. Pickens -- apickens@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, pro hac vice, John A. Boyle --
jboyle@khmarino.com -- Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC, Kevin Harry
Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC,
Lawrence C. Moore, III -- lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson, Bradshaw and Hinson, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark J.
Seifert -- info@seifertfirm.com -- Seifert Law Firm, Pearlynn G.
Houck -- phouck@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw Hinson,
Robert Walker Fuller, III -- rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson Bradshaw Hinson, P.A. & Robert Evans Harrington --
rharrington@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw Hinson, PA.

Atlantic Coast Conference, Defendant, represented by Charles
Lagrange Coleman, III -- ccoleman@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight
LLP, Adanna M. Love -- alove@medallia.com -- Charles Bailey King,
Jr. -- bailey.king@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood
LLP, David Erik Albright -- erik.albright@smithmoorelaw.com --
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, Duvol Thompson --
Duvol.Thompson@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP, James Donald
Smeallie -- jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP,
Jonathan P. Heyl -- jon.heyl@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore
Leatherwood LLP & Sean C. Sheely -- sean.sheely@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP.

The Big Twelve Conference, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wesley
Douglas Hurst -- whurst@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli LLP, Amy
Dawn Fitts -- afitts@polsinelli.com -- Caitlin Jemilha Morgan --
cmorgan@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli, PC, Leane K. Capps --
lcapps@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Matthew P. O'Malley --
momalley@tompkinsmcguire.com -- Tompkins McGuirem Wachenfeld &
Barry LLP & Milton Winter -- mwinter@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
PC.

National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, represented
by Beth Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON
WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Alexandra M. Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON
WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP, Anthony J. Dreyer, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Brian L. Stekloff --
bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP,
Gregory L. Curtner -- gcurtner@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes
& Cancila LLP, Jacob Klein Danziger -- jdanziger@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A. Mishkin --
jeffrey.mishkin@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom
LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Hoffman Lent -- karen.lent@skadden.com -
- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Rakesh
Kilaru -- rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- WILKINSON WALSH +
ESKOVITZ LLP, Robert James Wierenga -- rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Sean Eskovitz --
seskovitz@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz LLP.

Conference USA, Defendant, represented by Leane K. Capps,
Polsinelli PC, Amy Dawn Fitts, Caitlin Jemilha Morgan,
Polsinelli, PC & Milton Winter, Polsinelli PC.

American Athletic Conference, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
C. Block -- bblock@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, Lindsey
Catherine Barnhart -- lbarnhart@cov.com -- Covington Burling LLP
& Rebecca Ariel Jacobs -- rjacobs@cov.com -- Covington and
Burling LLP.

Mid-American Conference, Defendant, represented by Andrew B.
Downs -- andy.downs@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC,
Robert Todd Hunt -- rthunt@walterhav.com -- Walter Haverfield LLP
& Benjamin G. Chojnacki -- bchojnacki@walterhav.com -- Walter
Haverfield LLP.

Mountain West Conference, Defendant, represented by Meryl Macklin
-- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Richard Young -
- richard.young@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Brent Rychener
-- brent.rychener@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


MDL 2800: "Brumfield" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tyoka Brumfield, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06459, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 26, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05399-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-
TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952 0602
          Facsimile: (917) 525 4785


MDL 2800: "Johnson" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elvis A. Johnson, Individually
and on Behalf of all Other Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00100, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 26, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05415-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N Last Chance Gulch, PO Box 557
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442 3261
          Facsimile: (406) 443 7294

Attorneys for Equifax, Inc.:

          Charles Henry Carpenter, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON-DC
          600 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-2004
          Telephone: (202) 220 1507
          E-mail: carpenterc@carpenterlawfirmplc.com


MDL 2800: "Klein" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Steve Klein and Joseph Gershon
Blieberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05489, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 26, 2017.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05400-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-
cv-05004-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP - NY
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Sievers" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dustin Sievers, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00103, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 26,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05416-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No.
1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
          Triel D. Culver, Esq.
          EDWARDS FRICKLE & CULVER
          1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 256 8155
          Facsimile: (406) 256 8159


MERCEDES BENZ: 3d Cir. Affirms Denial of "Luppino" Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled VINCENT LUPPINO; CLIFF STERN; NOEL J. SPIEGEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellants, v. MERCEDES BENZ US, Case No. 16-3762 (3d Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed District
Court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment, and granting summary judgment in MBUSA's favor.

The Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents who purchased or leased
at least one of MBUSA's vehicles.  They allege that the vehicles'
wheels are overly susceptible to radial cracking, especially when
paired with low-profile tires.  They allege that MBUSA was aware
of the defects and discussed them internally, but continued to
advertise the strength of their vehicles and wheels.

On Nov. 2, 2009, they filed a complaint alleging that MBUSA's
vehicles were defective, that MBUSA publicly disseminated false
and misleading information as to the quality and durability of
the rims and failed to disclose the alleged defect to consumers,
and that MBUSA failed to honor their warranties.  The Plaintiffs
asserted claims of breach of express and implied warranty,
violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Following discovery, MBUSA filed Daubert motions to exclude the
testimony of all of the Plaintiffs' experts.  For their part, the
Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of one
of the Defendant's experts.  The District Court excluded a narrow
portion of one of the Plaintiffs' expert's testimony and denied
the remaining Daubert motions.  The Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs' expert opinions were admissible.

The Plaintiffs then moved for class certification on July 30,
2015, seeking certification as to the issue of whether the wheels
suffer from a design defect.  The putative class consisted of all
persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased
a Mercedes-Benz passenger vehicle, Model Year 2006 to present, in
any state (or, in the alternative, a New Jersey class), equipped
with 17, 18, or 19-inch wheels.  The District Court denied the
motion.

MBUSA moved for summary judgment with respect to the class
representatives' individual claims.  Thereafter, the Plaintiffs
moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: (i) that
MBUSA's express warranty covers design and manufacturing defects;
and (ii) that the warranty does not exclude damage to wheels
resulting from impact with potholes, obstacles in the roadway, or
other common road conditions or hazards.  The District Court
granted MBUSA's motion and denied the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed from these orders as well as the
District Court's order granting summary judgment on the
representative Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Rendell agrees with the District Court that the Plaintiffs
have failed to provide any evidence suggesting that the vehicle
systems' impact on the issue was negligible.  While they put
forth expert testimony that the radial cracking resulted from a
design defect, rather than driver error, their experts could not
establish common evidence of a uniform defect across systems.
Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the Plaintiffs had not submitted common proof of a defect as
to the class as a whole, A-40, and therefore could not meet the
commonality and predominance requisites for class certification.
And having failed commonality and predominance, she agrees with
the District Court that the putative class could not be
certified.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs make much of the
fact that the District Court had admitted its experts' opinions
under Daubert, but then did not credit their testimony enough to
proceed past summary judgment.  But in the summary judgment
context, the District Court was not weighing expert testimony.
Rather, it correctly stated that the Plaintiffs would need to
offer expert testimony to support their theory of a design
defect.  And the Plaintiffs did not offer such testimony.
Because the District Court correctly granted MBUSA's motion for
summary judgment, it also properly denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment on the scope of their express
warranty as moot.

Accordingly, Judge Rendell affirmed the District Court's denial
of class certification and its summary judgment orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Nw7Yhv from Leagle.com.


MERIBEAR PRODUCTIONS: "Nunez" Suit Alleges Labor Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Nunez, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. Meribear Productions, Inc. dba Meridith Baer Home,
and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC686196 (Calif. Super., December 11,
2017), seeks recovery of civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor Law.

PAGA permits "aggrieved employees" to bring a lawsuit as a
representative action on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved
current and former employees to recover civil penalties for
Defendant's violations of the Labor Code, and all applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

Plaintiff Juan Nunez worked for Defendants as a Helper from
approximately May 8, 2013 to December 14, 2016 in Los Angeles
County, California.

Defendant Meribear Productions, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is
in the interior design services business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Landers, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
      Tel: (323) 549-9100
      Fax: (323) 549-0101
      E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com

          - and -

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (323) 857-5900
      Fax: (310) 275-6301
      E-mail: bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com


METSUYAN BLUE: "Sotero" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Sotero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Metsuyan Blue Inc., Metsuyan Catering Inc., and
Gabriel Menashrov, Case No. 1:17-cv-06991 (E.D. N.Y., November
30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Mariano Sotero worked for Defendants as a food preparer
and food packager.   Throughout his employment, from in or about
2007 to on or about July 14, 2017, his job consisted of preparing
and cooking food and packaging sushi.

Defendants Metsuyan Blue and Metsuyan Catering jointly are a
sushi catering and distribution business.

Defendant Menashrov was the president, owner, and day-to-day
overseer of Metsuyan Blue and Metsuyan Catering. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Cafaro, Esq.
      Louis M. Leon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 583-7400
      E-mail: lleon@cafaroesq.com


MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Lucas Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA E. LUCAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation; DECTON INC., a California corporation; DECTON
STAFFING SERVICES, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC688239 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 26, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not
been paid, during the relevant liability periods, wages for all
time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including
but not limited to, improperly rounding time worked by their
employees. Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to
provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or
former employees within the State of California a 30 minute
uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked
more than five hours in a workday and a second 30 minute
uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the employees worked
in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing to provide
compensation for such unprovided meal periods.

Michael Kors is an American luxury fashion company that was
established in 1981 by designer Michael Kors. The company is
known for apparel, footwear, watches, handbags and other
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile (310) 553 3603


MICHIGAN: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fowler-Harris Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Ruth
Johnson, Michigan Secretary of State, in her official capacity,
the Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-2504 (6th Cir, Dec. 19,
20167, is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from a lower court decision in a
fraud class action, Case No. 4:17-cv-11441 (E.D. Mich., May 4,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellees:

          Anthony Dietrich Paris, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER
          4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993 4505

               - and -

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          Equal Justice Under Law
          601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 900
          Washingotn, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505 2058

Attorneys for RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her
official capacity:

          John G. Fedynsky, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373 6434


MIDLAND CREDIT: Knight Files Appeal in 3rd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------
RENEISHA KNIGHT, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, Inc., the Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-3786 (3rd
Cir., Dec. 19, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, from a lower court decision
in a fraud class action, Case No. 2-17-cv-03118 (E.D. Pa., Jul.
13, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant:

          Alexander Ferrante, Esq.
          GOLD & FERRANTE
          261 Old York Road, Suite 526
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 872 5127

               - and -

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW
          70 Clinton Avenue, Suite 3
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee:

          Stephen Keim, Esq.
          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575 2696


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: "Pugh" Discrimination Suit Junked
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled ADRIAN D. PUGH, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, Civil Action No. DKC 16-3816 (D.
Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and denied as moot Pugh's motions for summary judgment,
to strike, and for sanctions.

The Defendant's prior motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim was granted because the Plaintiff had not alleged
sufficiently that the Defendant failed to hire her because of her
race.

The Plaintiff was instructed that, if she still wished to proceed
on a Title VII claim against the Defendant for failure to hire
her as a Special Education teacher at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High
School for the 2014-2015 school year, and if she could allege in
good faith that, after June 19, 2014, she was qualified for the
position to which Ms. Moran was hired; applied for or was
prevented from applying for that position; and was not hired to
that position because of her race, then she would be permitted to
file an amended complaint within 21 days.

On May 3, the Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amended
Complaint,", and a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
her class action request.  On May 5, the Court denied her motion
for reconsideration and dismissed the amended complaint without
prejudice.  The Court explained that her filing was not in the
form of a complaint and did not plead new allegations against the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint on May 22.  The
Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss on June 5, she
submitted a response in opposition on June 23, and the Defendant
replied.  Without leave of the Court, the Plaintiff filed a
surreply on July 31.  She also filed a separate motion for
summary judgment, the Defendant submitted a response in
opposition on July 19, and the Plaintiff replied on July 31.  On
Aug. 18, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike, and a motion for
sanctions.  The Defendant submitted a response in opposition to
the Plaintiff's motions to strike and for sanctions, and she
replied.

Judge Chasanow finds that the Plaintiff states that an attachment
of her current CDC showing that she's allowed up to two years to
complete requirements, proves that she's is now eligible for CDC
for the state of Maryland, but also, she was eligible for CDC at
the time of the Defendant's written rejection email in September
2009.  The Judge says the Plaintiff's CDC is valid from 2016
through 2018 and the Plaintiff still has not alleged that she met
the qualifications for a special education teacher position for
the 2014-2015 school year.  The Defendant could not have
discriminated against the Plaintiff by hiring a different
candidate for a position for which she was not qualified.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's second amended complaint
fails to state a plausible claim for relief despite repeated
opportunities.  Thus, he granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's second
amended complaint.  Judge Chasanow denied as moot the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment, motion to strike the Defendant's
affidavit attached to its opposition to her motion for summary
judgment, and her motion to impose sanctions against the
Defendant for submitting the affidavit.  A separate order will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/dnqQzF from Leagle.com.

Adrian D. Pugh, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Board of Education Montgomery County, MD, Defendant, represented
by Patricia Lisehora Kane, Office of the Montgomery County
Attorney.


MOORE GROUP: Faces "Porter" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moore Group
Corporation. The case is styled as Joshua Porter and Sharkey
Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Moore Group Corporation, John Moore, Gary
Moore and Martin Moore, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-07405 (E.D. N.Y., December 20, 2017).

Moore Group Corporation is a carpentry work contractor located in
Baldwin, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Combs" Suit in S.D. of Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Debt
Relief. The case is styled Scott Combs, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v National Debt Relief
and John Does 1-3, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01150-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, December 28, 2017).

National Debt Relief is one of the country's debt settlement
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremiah E Heck, Esq.
   Luftman & Heck and Associates
   580 East Rich Street
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 224-1500
   Fax: (614) 224-2894
   Email: jheck@lawlh.com

      - and -

   Brian M Garvine, Esq.
   Law Office of Brian Garvine LLC
   5 E Long Street
   Suite 1100
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 223-0290
   Fax: (614) 716-0511


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Sued by Lamey Over Collection of Student Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM L. LAMEY, individually, and on behalf of a class (or
classes) of similarly situated individuals v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, d/b/a the NAVIENT CORPORATION, d/b/a NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
INC., d/b/a SLM, INC., f/k/a SALLIE MAE, Case No. 3:17-cv-00945-
WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss., November 29, 2017), is brought on behalf of
all persons in the United States, who have suffered violations
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, based upon unlawful acts and practices
in connection with the Defendant's servicing and collection of
borrowers' Navient-serviced student loans accounts.

Navient Solutions, LLC, doing business as the Navient
Corporation, has been formerly known as: Sallie Mae, Inc., Sallie
Mae, and Navient Solutions, Inc.  Navient is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal offices located in Reston,
Virginia.  Navient is engaged in debt collection activities
related to outstanding and delinquent student loans on behalf of
several owners of federal student loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          The Echelon Center
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 853-9521
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


NBTY INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSA ALVAREZ and COLLEEN LESHER, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
00567-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
granted the parties' unopposed ex parte motions for leave to file
notices of supplemental authority.

Plaintiffs Alvarez and Lesher are individual consumers who
purchased biotin vitamin supplements ("Biotin Product")
distributed by the Defendants, nutritional supplement
manufacturing companies.  They allege that the representations on
the Products' labels, which state that these products support
healthy hair, skin, and nails and energy, constitute false
advertising and violate California and Illinois consumer
protection laws.  Specifically, their First Amended Complaint
("FAC") alleges violations of the California's Unfair Competition
Law, Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 ("UCL"); the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Business Practices Act ("ICFA").

On numerous occasions from approximately 2014 through 2015,
Plaintiff Alvarez relied on the Products' representations when
purchasing the Defendants' Products, specifically the 10,000 mcg
"Health & Beauty rapid release liquid softgels.  If she had known
the truth about the Products, she would not have made these
purchases.  And she stopped purchasing the Products in August
2015 once she learned about the alleged misrepresentations.

Plaintiff Lesher was exposed to, saw, and relied on the
Defendants' representations in Illinois and purchased an
unspecified Product at retail price.  If Plaintiff Lesher had
known the Products did not provide the represented health
benefits, she would not have purchased the Products.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a multi-state
class consisting of all consumers who purchased the Products in
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.  Alternatively,
Plaintiff Alvarez seeks to represent California consumers of the
Products in a California-only class and Plaintiff Lesher seeks to
represent an Illinois-only class consisting of Illinois
consumers.  They seek monetary and injunctive relief.

On May 26, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
12(b)(6), and 9(b).  In their Reply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss, they moved to dismiss Plaintiff
Lesher's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2).

Additionally, both parties filed unopposed ex parte motions for
leave to file notices of supplemental authority.  Having reviewed
these motions and the supplemental case law, Judge Bashant
granted the motions for leave to file.

As an initial matter, the Defendants request that the Court takes
judicial notice of two Institute of Medicine reports ("IOM
Reports"): a 2000 report cited by the Plaintiffs in the FAC and
an updated 2006 version of the same report, which the Plaintiffs
did not cite.  The Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.  Because
the Plaintiffs refer extensively to the 2000 IOM Report in the
FAC, and because neither party contests the authenticity of
either report, Judge Bashant will incorporate the IOM Reports
into the FAC by reference.

The Judge finds a lack of personal jurisdiction defense was
available to the Defendants when they filed their initial
briefing.  Accordingly, she says, the Defendants waived this
defense when they failed to include it in their initial motion.

She also finds that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue
injunctive relief because there is no threat of future injury,
and that the relief is similarly unavailable to the proposed
class.  Accordingly, the Judge will grant the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive
relief.

While she recognizes that some courts find that standing is best
determined at the motion to dismiss stage, Judge Bashant declines
to do so here.  She says Plaintiff Alvarez has met the threshold
standing questions relating to her standing to assert her claims.
Thus, this secondary standing analysis relating to Plaintiff
Alvarez's standing as it relates to multi-state class is best
left for class certification and after further discovery.
Accordingly, she will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' multi-state class claims, and will evaluate the
multi-state class claims at the class certification stage.

The Plaintiffs allege that each of the Biotin Products -- whether
the 5,000 mcg or the 10,000 mcg bottle -- contain the same sole
active ingredient and include the same claim of false or
misleading advertising.  Because the products and
misrepresentations are sufficiently similar, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs have standing to assert claims for the various
alleged products.  Accordingly, she will deny the Defendants'
motion to dismiss as it pertains to Products not purchased by the
Plaintiffs.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled
that the advertised claims are actually false.  While more
scientific evidence in support of this claim may be necessary
going forward, she finds that the allegations are sufficient to
survive the motion to dismiss stage, and will deny the motion to
dismiss on this ground.

Finally, Judge Bashant finds that Plaintiff Alvarez has
adequately pled her fraud claims, but Plaintiff Lesher has not.
Nowhere in the FAC does Plaintiff Lesher identify which "Product"
label she saw or which "Product" she purchased.  This type of
pleading is insufficient, and fails to provide the "who, what,
when, where, and how" elements of Plaintiff Lesher's fraud
claims.  Accordingly, Judge will deny the motion to dismiss on
this ground for Plaintiff Alvarez's claims; and will grant with
leave to amend the motion to dismiss on this ground for Plaintiff
Lesher's claims.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Bashant granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Specifically,
she granted the motion with regard to the claims for prospective
injunctive relief, granted with leave to amend Plaintiff Lesher's
claims, and denied the motion with regard to the remaining
claims.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended
Complaint that only provides additional factual allegations
relating to Plaintiff Lesher's purchases of the Products in
support of her fraud claims no later than Dec. 20, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/dAmkJH from Leagle.com.

Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie A. Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC,
pro hac vice.

Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine A. Ryan --
eryan@bffb.com --Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, pro
hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang -- mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut
PC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic -- ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com --
Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice, Patricia N. Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC &
Stewart Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac
vice.

Colleen Lesher, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nada Djordjevic, Boodell &
Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC.

NBTY, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Amanda Leigh Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP.

Nature's Bounty, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amanda Leigh Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP.


NEW ENGLAND AUTO: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Gamble"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant New England Auto Finance, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Hope Gamble v. New England
Auto Finance, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02979-LMM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to send non-emergency text messages to numbers
assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express
consent.

New England Auto Finance, Inc., is a New Hampshire corporation
with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  The
Company is an automobile finance and payday loan company.

The appellate case is captioned as Hope Gamble v. New England
Auto Finance, Inc., Case No. 17-15343, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before January 9, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before December 28, 2017, as to Appellee Hope Gamble.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee HOPE GAMBLE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          KROHN & MOSS, LTD.
          1100 Spring St. NW, Suite 350
          Atlanta, GA 30309-2854
          Telephone: (404) 668-2381
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

Defendant- Appellant NEW ENGLAND AUTO FINANCE, INC., is
represented by:

          Daniel L. Delnero, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          999 Peachtree St., Suite 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4471
          Telephone: (678) 420-9320
          E-mail: delnerod@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Levin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          1735 Market St., Floor 51
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 665-8500
          E-mail: levinmj@ballardspahr.com


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nintendo of America
Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Nintendo of America Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10146-RA (S.D. N.Y., December 28,
2017).

Nintendo of America Inc is engaged in the video games
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVITEX ENTERPRISE: Knights Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Knights, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Novitex Enterprise Solutions, Inc., and The
Millennium Group of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09359
(S.D.N.Y., November 29, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and the
class, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, are entitled to
unpaid wages from the Defendants for working more than 40 hours
in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5
times the regular rate for each and all such hours over 40 in a
week.

Novitex Enterprise Solutions, Inc., was a for-profit corporation,
duly authorized to do business in the state of New York.  The
Millennium Group of Delaware, Inc., was a for-profit corporation
duly authorized to do business in the state of New York.

Until March 2017, the Defendants provided employees, including
the Plaintiff, to work in the mail room of Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America in New York City.  In March 2017,
TMG became the successor in interests to Novitex, including with
respect to the Plaintiff's employment at TIAA.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of providing courier
management services to a wide variety of companies, such as
TIAA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


OAK RIVER: "Shelby" Suit Remains in Missouri District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand the case styled QUENTON SHELBY, Individually and
on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OAK RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-0224-DGK (W.D.
Mo.).

The dispute stems from a separate lawsuit brought by a used car
dealer, Miller Investment Group ("MIG"), seeking to recover
against Plaintiff Shelby for a deficiency on his secured car
loan.  In response, the Plaintiff filed a class-action counter-
claim alleging MIG violated the UCC and engaged in a deceptive
pattern in repossessing cars.  MIG subsequently entered into a
class-wide settlement with the Plaintiff in which MIG assigned
any claims it had against its insurers to the Plaintiff and the
other class members.

Oak River is an insurance company that issued garage liability
insurance policies to MIG.  Oak River denied coverage in the
underlying litigation, purportedly because the underlying
litigation concerned statutory penalties arising out of financing
activities and not any activity associated with MIG's operation
of a garage.

On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed suit against Oak River in
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, seeking to recover
under Oak River's policies.  Oak River contends it was initially
unclear whether the case was a class-action lawsuit.  On March 8,
2017, the Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended petition
asserting that the case was, in fact, a class action lawsuit.
Among other things, the proposed First Amended Petition stated
Shelby is asserting MIG's and the Class's claims.  It also
revised the prayer for relief clause in Count II to state it was
seeking damages for Shelby and the Class.

On March 28, 2017, Oak River removed the case to federal court by
asserting Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") jurisdiction,
arguing the motion to amend and proposed First Amended Petition
were the first sufficiently detailed and unequivocal statements
from which it could unambiguously ascertain that this was a class
action.

The Plaintiff now moves for remand, arguing Oak River's removal
was untimely, and even if it was timely, the Court should decline
to hear the dispute under CAFA's "interests of justice"
exception.

Judge Kays holds Oak River's removal was timely filed.  After
carefully reading the initial petition, he finds it is unclear
whether the Plaintiff was attempting to plead a class action or
not.  He holds that it was only after Oak River received the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on March 8, 2017, that it
was unambiguous that the Plaintiff was asserting a class action.
Since Oak River filed its notice of removal 20 days later, it was
timely filed.

Moreover, the Judge declines to exercise its discretion to remand
the case back to state court under CAFA's "interests of justice"
exception for two independent reasons.  First, the Plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing that the Court should exercise
its discretion to remand, and he has not met that burden. Second,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3) requires the Court to consider "the
totality of the circumstances" in deciding whether it should
exercise discretion to remand.  Here, the Plaintiff attempted to
deprive Oak River of its statutory right to removal by being less
than candid it as to whether the case was a class action.  This
is impermissible, and the Judge will not reward the use of such
tactics by granting the relief sought.

For these reasons, Judge Kays denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UnV3ij from Leagle.com.

Quenton Shelby, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Rochman, The
Onder Law Firm.

Quenton Shelby, Plaintiff, represented by Martin L. Daesch, The
Onder Law Firm.

Oak River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin D.
Brooks -- Kevin.Brooks@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock, LLP & M.
Courtney Koger -- Courtney.Koger@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock,
LLP.


OPEN DOOR: Brief in "Jennings" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Mar. 26
----------------------------------------------------------
SHIKWANA JENNINGS and LISA DRAKE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Appellees, v. OPEN
DOOR MARKETING, LLC; LARRY DALE CLARK; JERRIMY FARRIS; and 20/20
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., erroneously sued as 2020 Companies LLC
Defendant-Appellants, Case No. 17-17482 (9th Cir, Dec. 14, 2017),
is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class
action, Case No. 4:15-cv-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2017).

Mediation Questionnaire was due Dec. 21, 2017. Transcript is due
Feb. 14, 2018. Appellants opening brief is due on Mar. 26, 2018.
Appellees answering brief is due on Apr. 26, 2018. Appellant's
optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the
answering brief.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellees

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Personal: (617) 994 5800

Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellants:

          Kristin A. Smith, Esq.
          FOSTER EMPLOYMENT LAW
          3000 Lakeshore Ave.
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Telephone: (510) 763 1900

               - and -

          Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071


OSF HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHEILAR SMITH, et al., On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and On Behalf of
the OSF Plans Plaintiffs, v. OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-467-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci
M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts X-XIV
of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

OSF, an Illinois 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, operates 11
acute care hospitals, home health care services and other health
care facilities in Illinois and Michigan.  As part of its
operations, OSF maintains at least two defined-benefits plans
covering its own direct employees ("St. Francis Plan") and
employees of the recently-acquired St. Anthony's Health Center
("St. Anthony's Plan").  Defendant Retirement Committee for the
Retirement Plan for Employees of Saint Anthony's Health Center
("St. Anthony's Committee") is the administrator of the St.
Anthony's Plan.  Defendant Sisters of the Third Order of St.
Francis Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee ("St.
Francis Committee") is the administrator of the St. Francis Plan.

Plaintiffs Smith and June Schwierjohn were employed at Saint
Anthony's Health Center until 2015 and 2016 respectively.  Both
are vested participants in the St. Anthony's Plan.  Plaintiffs
Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey and Peggy Wise were employed by OSF
and are vested participants in the St. Francis Plan.

Initially, the case involved only claims asserted under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that OSF and related entities
had improperly treated the St. Anthony's Plan and St. Francis
Plan as "church plans," which are exempt from the requirements of
ERISA.  They further allege that OSF has failed to adequately
fund the Plans' trust accounts to the level required under ERISA
to cover all accrued benefits, that the Defendants failed to
follow certain notice, disclosure and managerial requirements,
and that the Defendants had breached their duties as fiduciaries.

After the case was filed, the Supreme Court issued its Opinion in
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton which resolved some,
but not all of the issues in the litigation.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Third (and later Fourth) Amended Complaint
adding five alternative causes of action for relief under State
law if the Court determines that the OSF Plans are church plans
exempt from ERISA.  The state law counts (Counts X-XIV) all
center on OSF's alleged failure to make adequate contributions to
the Plans to ensure that there were sufficient funds to pay
accrued benefits.

Count X asserts a breach of contract claim against OSF based on
express and implied promises by OSF and its predecessors to (i)
pay to the Plaintiffs and other Class members, upon retirement,
defined benefit pensions in amounts that increased with each year
of service; and (ii) make ongoing contributions to the OSF Plan
trusts that were sufficient, on an actuarial basis, to pay for
the accrued pension benefits.

Count XI is the equity alternative to Count X's contract claim,
in the event no enforceable contract is found to exist.  It is
premised on the same alleged promises and asserts a claim for
promissory estoppel, on the theory that the Plaintiffs and
putative class members relied on these representations in
starting or continuing their employment with the covered
organizations.  Count XII also sounds in equity, asserting that
OSF's enjoying the benefits of the class members' work while
retaining funds which should have been contributed to the Plans'
trust accounts amounts to unjust enrichment.

The remaining two counts assert claims for the breach of common
law fiduciary duties by OSF (Count XIII) and the St. Francis and
St. Anthony's Committees (Count XIV).  Count XIII alleges that
they and the putative class are beneficiaries of the trusts which
hold the Plans' assets, that OSF is a fiduciary pursuant to the
OSF Plan documents and that it has breached its fiduciary
obligations by retaining funds that should have been contributed
to fund the Plans' future obligations.

Count XIV allege that the St. Francis and St. Anthony's
Committees breached their fiduciary duties in failing to use
reasonable diligence to take control of trust property without
unnecessary delay.  In both counts, they seek to compel the
Defendants to perform their duties and make good any losses
caused by the alleged breaches of those duties.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts X-
XIV of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

Judge Yandle holds that the Plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted.  Counts X-XII specifically seek to enforce OSF's
alleged duty to adequately fund the Plans.  As such, they could
have been -- and have been -- brought under the auspices of
ERISA.  Similarly, breach of fiduciary duty claims, such as those
set forth in Counts XIII and XIV are specifically authorized by
the statute.  Additionally, the state law counts do not implicate
any duty independent of the Plans.  Without the Plans, there
would be no duty for OSF to contribute to the trusts and no
violations arising from the alleged failure to adequately do so.

In addition, ERISA is the only basis for this action to be in
federal court.  The Plaintiffs have pled the state law claims in
the alternative to the ERISA counts because they recognize the
two approaches are mutually exclusive.  If the Court were to find
that ERISA applies, the state law claims must be dismissed as
preempted.  On the other hand, if the Court finds that ERISA does
not apply, then the state law claims are not preempted, but lack
any basis for federal jurisdiction and the Court must dismiss the
case.  In either case, the Judge says, the result is the state
law counts being dismissed.

Given the absolute conflict between complete preemption and
supplemental jurisdiction, the state law claims are poisonous to
federal subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs can either
proceed on their state law claims or they can be in federal
court, but not both.  There is no point in continuing to litigate
these claims in the Court because they are going to be dismissed
sooner or later.  Judge Yandle will therefore exercise its
discretion and dismiss them without prejudice now for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' state law claims.  Counts X-XIV of the Fourth
Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/HJ5Ztm from Leagle.com.

Sheilar Smith, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,
Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong --
matt@mattarmstronglaw.com -- Armstrong Law Firm LLC.

Sheilar Smith, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,
Plaintiff, represented by Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, Havila C. Unrein -- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback, LLP, Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com
-- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Karen Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Nobel LLP, Mary Joanne Bortscheller
-- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Ron Kilgard --
rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Scott
Michael Lempert -- slempert@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll, PLLC & Laura R. Gerber --
lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP.

Kasandra Anton, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,
Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law
Firm LLC, Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Havila C. Unrein, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Julie Siebert-Johnson,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Karen Handorf, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Mark K. Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Mary Joanne Bortscheller,
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Michelle C. Yau, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback,
LLP, Scott Michael Lempert, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC
& Laura R. Gerber, Keller Rohrback, LLP.

June Schwierjohn, Plaintiff, represented by Laura R. Gerber,
Keller Rohrback, LLP.

Bonnie Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Laura R. Gerber, Keller
Rohrback, LLP.

Peggy Wise, Plaintiff, represented by Laura R. Gerber, Keller
Rohrback, LLP.

OSF Healthcare System, Defendant, represented by Brian T.
Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et
al., Robert J. Bassett -- RBassett@wvslaw.com -- Williams Venker
& Sanders LLC, Erin E. McAdams -- erin.mcadams@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis et al., Jennifer L. Maloney -- jmaloney@wvslaw.com
-- Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al. &
Roberta H. Vespremi-- roberta.kuehne@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius.

Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees Pension Plan
Administrative Committee, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Bassett, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Brian T. Ortelere,
Morgan, Lewis et al. & Jennifer L. Maloney, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

Retirement Committee for the Retirement Plan for Employees of
Saint Anthony's Health Center, Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Bassett, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Brian T. Ortelere,
Morgan, Lewis et al. & Jennifer L. Maloney, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

USA, Movant, represented by Emily Newton, U.S. Department of
Justice.


PACIFIC GAS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Lopez and Michael A. Lopez, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. CGC-17-562970
(Calif. Super., December 11, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Peter A. Lopez is a current hourly-paid non-exempt
employee of Defendant PG&E who resides in the State of
California. He is currently employed as an electrical service
dispatch operator.

Plaintiff Michael A. Lopez, Jr. is a current hourly-paid non-
exempt employee of Defendant PG&E who resides in the State of
California. He is currently employed as an electrical service
dispatch operator.

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company is a California
corporation, with headquarters in San Francisco, California. PG&E
operates as an electrical and gas utility company throughout
Northern and Central California and employs hourly operators like
Plaintiffs throughout the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 595-3001
      Fax: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
              jhill@ckslaw.com


PENGUIN TRADING: "Buso" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Buso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Penguin Trading, Inc., doing business as: Fruit Bliss, a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive , the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-07025, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on
Dec. 26, 2017. The Brooklyn District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-07488-NGG-RER to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

Penguin Trading is a grocery company located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          CALL, JENSEN & FERRELL, APC
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717 3100
          E-mail: sferrell@calljensen.com

Attorneys for Penguin Trading, Inc.:

          Alexandra Arneri, Esq.
          CITTONE & CHINTA LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 710 5619
          Facsimile: (212) 624 0244
          E-mail:aarneri@cittonechinta.com


PLANO MOLDING: Faces "Thome" Suit over Use of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY THOME, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. PLANO MOLDING COMPANY, LLC a/k/a PLANO
SYNERGY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17CH16953 (in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., Dec. 26, 2017), seeks to recover
damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's Biometric
Information Privacy Act violations.

The Plaintiff relates that Defendant's employees have been
required to "clock in" and "clock out" of their work shifts by
having their fingerprint scanned, which verifies the identity of
the employee. The Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly
obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from
an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers,
especially a fingerprint or hand scan, and biometric information
derived from it.  The BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform
its employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees
in writing for how long it will store their biometric fingerprint
data or information and any purposes for which biometric
information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make
available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently
destroy such information.

Plano Molding provides storage and protective systems. The
Company offers tackle products, tool boxes, shelving products,
storage products for golf, gun and ammo cases, and plastic
cosmetic organizers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: 314 833 4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com
                  plesko@gmail.com


PREFERRED INSULATION: "Arnold" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Arnold, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Preferred Insulation, Inc. and Mike Behun, Case No.
1:17-cv-02556 (N.D. Ohio, December 8, 2017), seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1983 and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Plaintiff Nicole Arnold is a former employee of Preferred
Insulation. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an installer in
or around December 2016.

Defendant Preferred Insulations quotes, sells, and installs
building insulation materials in and outside of Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Tel: (216) 291-4744
      Fax: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Huffman"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled CLARK R. HUFFMAN; PATRICIA L. GRANTHAM; LINDA
M. PACE; and BRANDI K. WINTERS, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
2:10-cv-05135 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted in part and denied in part both the Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Prudential contracted with two companies, JPMorgan Bank and Con-
way Inc. to provide group life insurance benefits to the two
companies' employees.  Plaintiffs Huffman and his sister Winters
were the beneficiaries of the life insurance benefits that their
mother received through the JPMorgan program.  The remaining two
Plaintiffs were beneficiaries under the Con-way plan: Plaintiffs
Grantham and Pace were the beneficiaries of the life insurance
benefits that their deceased husbands each received from Con-way.

When benefits became due, Prudential's default practice was not
to send the beneficiaries a single check for the amount of
benefits due, but instead to open a bank account, called an
Alliance Account, containing the amount of benefits due against
which the beneficiaries could draw checks.  This arrangement
allowed Prudential to retain and invest the funds until drawn
upon, and thereby make a profit.  The Plaintiffs contend that
this means of payment violated Prudential's fiduciary duties
under ERISA or, in the alternative, state law, and also violated
ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 30, 2010, as a
putative class action alleging ERISA violations.  The case was
placed in civil suspense from April 20, 2012, through August 22,
2014, pending the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
in Edmonson v. Lincoln Nat'l. Life Ins. Co..  Afterward, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on July 22,
2015.

In the three-count amended class action complaint, the Plaintiffs
allege first that Prudential violated its fiduciary duties under
ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1).  Second
and in the alternative in the event that ERISA does not apply,
they Plaintiffs that Prudential breached common law fiduciary
duties.  Third, the Plaintiffs allege that Prudential engaged in
a prohibited transaction under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C), 29
U.S.C. Section 1106(a)(1)(C).

The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class, and the Court denied
certification on Sept. 30, 2016, and denied reconsideration of
its decision on Dec. 13, 2016.  The Plaintiff moved for partial
summary judgment on the issue of liability on Feb. 16, 2017, and
the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the same
date.  After another period of civil suspense culminating in an
unsuccessful private mediation, the motions are ripe for
decision.

Judge Leeson concludes that Prudential's choice to establish
accounts for beneficiaries (Alliance Accounts) was inconsistent
with the plan language, which instead required payment (in "one
sum").  ERISA's fiduciary duties still applied to Prudential
after it established the accounts.  Although the beneficiaries
admittedly had access to the funds with the establishment of the
Alliance Accounts, Prudential essentially was retaining
possession of the funds until such time as the beneficiaries drew
the funds out in whole or in part.  This is in contrast to the
issuance of payment in "one sum" by which Prudential would not
retain possession of any funds.  Accordingly, Prudential violated
its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and the Plaintiffs are entitled
to summary judgment with respect to liability on Count I.

For Count II, the Judge holds that Prudential has taken the
position that it owed no fiduciary duties, and issues of fact
remain as to whether the reasonable compensation exception
applies.  Issues of fact also exist as to whether Prudential
disclosed to plan beneficiaries or sponsors the arrangement
whereby it would profit from investing the Alliance Account funds
and the degree to which Prudential did profit.  Therefore, he
says the Plaintiffs' and Prudential's motions for summary
judgment as to the Section 406(a)(1)(C) claim will be denied.

Because the Plaintiffs can prevail on their breach of fiduciary
duty claim under ERISA, their common law breach of fiduciary duty
claims pleaded in the alternative cannot survive summary
judgment.  Accordingly, the Judge will grant Prudential's motion
for summary judgment as to Count III.

For these reasons, Judge Leeson granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to Count I, and
denied with respect to Count II.  He denied in part the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Count I
and Count II, and granted with respect to Count III.  A separate
Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/9LOifk from Leagle.com.

CLARK R. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER --
cflitter@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER MILZ, P.C..

CLARK R. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW M. MILZ --
amilz@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JOHN C. BELL, JR. -
- john@bellbrigham.com -- BELL & BRIGHAM, LEE W. BRIGHAM --
lee@bellbrigham.com -- BELL & BRIGHAM, M. SCOTT BARRETT --
Scott@barrettwylie.com -- Barrett Wylie, LLC. & STUART T. ROSSMAN
-- srossman@nclc.org -- NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

PATRICIA L. GRANTHAM, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER,
FLITTER MILZ, P.C., ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JOHN C.
BELL, JR., BELL & BRIGHAM, LEE W. BRIGHAM, BELL & BRIGHAM, M.
SCOTT BARRETT, Barrett Wylie, LLC. & STUART T. ROSSMAN, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

LINDA M. PACE, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER, FLITTER
MILZ, P.C., ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JOHN C. BELL,
JR., BELL & BRIGHAM, LEE W. BRIGHAM, BELL & BRIGHAM, M. SCOTT
BARRETT, Barrett Wylie, LLC. & STUART T. ROSSMAN, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

BRANDI K. WINTERS, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER,
FLITTER MILZ, P.C., ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JOHN C.
BELL, JR., BELL & BRIGHAM, LEE W. BRIGHAM, BELL & BRIGHAM, M.
SCOTT BARRETT, Barrett Wylie, LLC. & STUART T. ROSSMAN, NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant,
represented by DONALD E. WIEAND, JR. -- dew@stevenslee.com --
STEVENS & LEE, EDWIN G. SCHALLERT -- egschallert@debevoise.com --
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, MAEVE O'CONNOR --
mloconnor@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE & PIMPTON, MARTIN C. BRYCE,
JR. -- Bryce@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND
INGERSOLL, L.L.P., ALISON V. DOUGLASS --
adouglass@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR, LLP,
DAVID ROSENBERG -- drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER
LLP, JAMES O. FLECKNER -- jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com --
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR, LLP, JORDAN D. WEISS --
jweiss@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP & MICHAEL K. ISENMAN
-- misenman@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTOR, LLP.


RAPID ARMORED: Faces "Gallimore" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Armored
Corporation. The case is styled as Howard Gallimore,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rapid Armored Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-07415 (E.D. N.Y., December 20, 2017).

Rapid Armored Corporation was founded in 1971. The company's line
of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

   Howard Gallimore
   215-28 Hillside Avenue
   Queens Village, NY 11427
   Tel: 740-1000
   Tel: 740-2000
   Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
   C/o Abdul Hassan Law Group PLLC
   Tel: 718-0
   Fax: 718-0


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Borecki"
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Borecki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff -- Appellee, v. Raymours Furniture
Company, Inc., DBA Raymour & Flanigan, the Defendant --
Appellant, Case No. 17-3996 (2nd Cir, Dec. 16, 2017), is an
appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the
2nd Circuit from a lower court decision in a class action, Case
No. 17-cv-1188 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2017).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellee:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Personal: 212-300-0375

               - and -

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Personal: (206) 816 6603

Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellant:

          John P. Amato, Esq.
          HAHN & HESSEN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Personal: (212) 478 7380


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Denton" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Denton, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-
02953 (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Holly Denton is a resident of Auburndale, Florida when
she received the calls at issue from Defendant.

Defendant is a debt collection company based in Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAINT-GOBAIN: Court Narrows Claims in "Brown" Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Kevin Brown, et al., v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., et al., Civil No. 16-cv-
242-JL (D. N.H.).

The proposed class action arises out of the release of toxic
chemicals from Saint-Gobain's manufacturing plant in Merrimack,
New Hampshire.  Defendant Gwenael Busnel has served as general
manager of the plant since 2012.  At that location, Saint-Gobain
used ammonium perflurooctonoate ("AFPO"), a derivative of
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") in, for example, a process that
coated woven fiberglass and other fabric with material.

In early 2016, Saint-Gobain reported the presence of elevated
levels of PFOA in the municipal water supplied by the Merrimack
Village District Water Works.  Following this report, the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services discovered the
presence of PFOA in residential wells in the vicinity of Saint-
Gobain's plant and recommended that certain residents of
surrounding cities and towns not drink or cook with water from
those wells, or consume vegetables from gardens where PFOA-
contaminated water was used.

The Plaintiffs allege that Saint-Gobain released PFOA into the
air, soil, and water in the vicinity of its Merrimack facility.
They further allege that Saint-Gobain was aware of the potential
for PFOA contamination arising from its manufacturing processes
in light of contamination of the public drinking water supply
near its Hoosick, New York plant, which it reported to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency in 2014.  The Plaintiffs
also allege that Saint-Gobain removed its operations from a plant
in North Bennington, Vermont, to the Merrimack facility after
Vermont imposed tighter environmental protection regulations to
reduce emissions of PFOA.  Despite this knowledge, the Plaintiffs
allege, Saint-Gobain failed to install systems to limit PFOA
emissions from its Merrimack facility.

The Plaintiffs allege that PFOA has contaminated the soil and
water obtained through private wells within a certain geographic
area, as well as water in Merrimack and Bedford, New Hampshire,
provided through the Merrimack Village District Water Works.  For
all of those who own residential property within these geographic
areas, they seek damages for injury to their property, including
(i) diminished market value, (ii) costs incurred to remediate and
mitigate the contamination, and (iii) loss of use and enjoyment
of their property.

For all of those who resided in these geographical areas and
consumed water containing defined levels of PFOA for at least one
year, or were born to mothers who consumed such water, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover the costs of monitoring for injuries
related to exposure to PFOA in light of their significant
increased risk of illness, disease or disease process.  The
DeBlois Plaintiffs, who have opted out of these classes, seek the
same remedies, as well as recovery for additional losses
including, but not limited to, business losses, attorney fees for
protecting their property rights in placing the water line,
future water expenses and out-of-pocket expenses.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under four common-law torts:
trespass, nuisance, negligence, and negligent failure to warn.
They also seek to recover under the equitable doctrine of unjust
enrichment.  The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims, arguing that the
Plaintiffs claiming property damage have not alleged any tangible
damage to their property, but seek only economic damages
foreclosed in tort by the economic loss doctrine or to recover
for groundwater contamination, for which they have no private
cause of action.  They further argue that the Plaintiffs seeking
medical monitoring have not alleged any present physical injury.
Finally, they argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead all
the elements of trespass, and that the Plaintiffs, even on the
facts construed in their favor, cannot recover under their
negligent failure to warn and unjust enrichment theories.

Judge Laplante will deny the majority of the Defendants' motion.
At this stage of the litigation, he says, the property-owning
Plaintiffs have pleaded facts, including present, physical damage
to their property and contamination of groundwater, sufficient to
maintain their claims for trespass, nuisance, and negligence.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' medical-
monitoring claims will likewise be denied at this juncture.
Because New Hampshire has not recognized negative unjust
enrichment -- that is, unjust enrichment through a Defendant's
failure to incur costs rather than through receipt of a benefit -
- as a cause of action, however, the Judge will dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

As a final note, the Plaintiffs' request on the last page of
their opposition for leave to amend their pleadings runs afoul of
the Court's Local Rule 7.1(a)(1).  Even if it did not, the Judge
says, as the Defendants rightly observe, the Court afforded the
Plaintiffs in this consolidated action three separate
opportunities to file a consolidated complaint.  The Court is
thus disinclined to grant the Plaintiffs a fourth opportunity to
adduce facts in support of their consolidated claims.  It is
equally disinclined to elevate form over substance, however, and
therefore will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
substitute certain paragraph references in their consolidated
complaint to correct what appear to the court to be mere
typographical errors.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Laplante granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
Specifically, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (Count 5), and denied it as
to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims.  Finally, the Judge granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to substitute.  He granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to substitute.  They will file an
amended complaint reflecting these revisions on or before Dec.
13, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/ynBvbT from Leagle.com.

Kevin Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Scott Hannon, Hannon
Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice.

Kevin Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. DeCarolis --
pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com -- Gottesman & Hollis PA & Anthony
Sculimbrene -- asculimbrene@nh-lawyers.com -- Gottesman & Hollis
PA.

Christopher Blundon, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Scott
Hannon, Hannon Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice, Paul M. DeCarolis,
Gottesman & Hollis PA & Anthony Sculimbrene, Gottesman & Hollis
PA.

Adam W. Dyer, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Scott Hannon,
Hannon Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice & Paul M. DeCarolis, Gottesman
& Hollis PA.

Brian Mendez, Individually and as natural parent and personal
representative for M.M., Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J.
Shkolnik -- hunter@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac
vice, Kirk C. Simoneau -- ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com -- Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman --
lvogelman@davenixonlaw.com -- Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky &
Simoneau PA, Louise R. Caro -- LCaro@napolilaw.com -- Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Paul J. Napoli --
PNapoli@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice.

Brenda Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Kirk C. Simoneau, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Paul J. Napoli, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Louise R. Caro, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice.

James Bollengier, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Kirk C. Simoneau, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Paul J. Napoli, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Louise R. Caro, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Jean Dowling, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Kirk C. Simoneau, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Paul J. Napoli, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Louise R. Caro, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Amy Mendez, Individually and as natural parent and personal
represenative for M.M., Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Kirk C. Simoneau,
Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman,
Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Paul J. Napoli,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Louise R. Caro, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice.

Beverly Volner, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Kirk C. Simoneau, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman, Nixon
Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Paul J. Napoli, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Louise R. Caro, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Bruce W. Felmly -- bruce.felmly@mclane.co --
McLane Middleton, Douglas E. Fleming, III --
douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Lincoln D. Wilson --
lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Curran --
patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A. LaFata --
paullafata@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, pro hac vice, Sheila L. Birnbaum --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas F. Casolaro --
nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com -- McLane Middleton.

Gwenael Busnel, Defendant, represented by Bruce W. Felmly, McLane
Middleton, Douglas E. Fleming, III, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Curran, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas F.
Casolaro, McLane Middleton.

John Does 1-5, Defendant, represented by Douglas E. Fleming, III,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick
Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice &
Sheila L. Birnbaum, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro
hac vice.

Jean Dowling, Objector, represented by Louise R. Caro, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice.


SAN JOSE, CA: Court Decertifies Class in "Wallace" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARREN WALLACE, KEITH HART, MARK LEEDS, and other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL (N.D. Cal.), Judge Howard
R. Lloyd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Defendant's motion for
decertification.

The Named Plaintiffs sue the City of San Jose, for themselves and
on behalf of a conditionally certified collective class of
certain firefighter employees, for alleged wage/hour violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California Labor
Code Section 1197.

Their claims arise from two types of overtime payments applicable
to all class members: (i) so-called contractual overtime, which
has been described to the Court as pay (governed by a Memorandum
of Agreement between the City and its firefighter employees) for
any hours an employee works beyond his or her regularly scheduled
shift hours; and (ii) FLSA overtime, which the Court is told
refers to pay for hours an employee works beyond the maximum
allowed by the applicable FLSA threshold.

The Plaintiffs essentially allege that in calculating overtime
owed under the FLSA, the City takes too big a "credit" against
FLSA overtime versus contractual overtime, resulting in the
underpayment of FLSA overtime, as well as in wage payments lower
than the minimum wage.

The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.  Although the City maintains that the
case is not suitable for collective class treatment, it did not
strenuously oppose conditional certification, in view of the very
lenient standard applied at that stage of the certification
proceedings.  The only basis for the City's opposition was the
temporal scope of the proposed collective class; and, there ended
up being no controversy about that because the Plaintiffs agreed
with the City's position on that issue.

Accordingly, the conditionally certified FLSA collective class is
defined as all current and former employees (i) employed as a
fire recruit, firefighter, fire engineer, fire captain, fire
prevention inspector, arson investigator or battalion chief at
any time on or after March 11, 2013 (for willful FLSA violations)
or March 11, 2014 (generally); and (ii) who have opted-in or will
opt-in on or before April 25, 2017.  There are some 525 opt-ins.

The City now moves to decertify the collective class.  As to 8 of
the opt-ins, there is no dispute that they do not belong in the
class because they retired before March 2013.  Indeed, the
Plaintiffs agree that the class includes only those employed by
the City and who worked some overtime hours on or after March 11,
2013.  Even so, the City maintains that collective class
treatment is inappropriate, arguing that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden of establishing that the class
members are "similarly situated" under the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs
oppose the motion.

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well
as the oral arguments presented, Judge Lloyd granted the motion.
He finds that the Plaintiffs have presented no consistent
evidence as to a uniform policy that would result in systematic
FLSA violations across the class.  Resolution of liability and
damages issues would essentially require individualized inquiries
as to each opt-in to determine whether they worked the "very
specific situation" identified by Wallace and whether any have
actually been injured in the way plaintiffs claim.

Each of the Plaintiff's case would require consideration of
different background facts based on each employee's work
activities in any given pay period.  Thus, representative
testimony would not accurately capture the situation of each
individual Plaintiff.  In view of the Plaintiffs' and the
collective members' varied job duties, shifts, and employment
settings, as well as the lack of any evidence that any of the
opt-ins actually were underpaid per the Plaintiffs' theory, the
Judge concludes that the fair way to proceed is through
decertification.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Lloyd granted the Defendant's
motion for decertification.  Except for the Named Plaintiffs, all
other Plaintiffs' claims are severed from the action and
dismissed without prejudice to each of the Plaintiff filing a
separate action for his or her claim.  As for any Plaintiffs who
may be adversely affected by a statute of limitations issue, the
Judge tolled the limitations period for 90 days from the date of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sHSHb2 from Leagle.com.

Darren Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Eugene
Platten -- cplatten@wmprlaw.com -- Wylie McBride Platten &
Renner.

Darren Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Carol Lynn Koenig --
ckoenig@wmprlaw.com -- Wylie McBride Platten & Renner & John A.
McBride, Wylie McBride Platten & Renner.

Keith Hart, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Eugene Platten,
Wylie McBride Platten & Renner, Carol Lynn Koenig, Wylie McBride
Platten & Renner & John A. McBride, Wylie McBride Platten &
Renner.

Mark Leeds, and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher Eugene Platten, Wylie McBride Platten
& Renner, Carol Lynn Koenig, Wylie McBride Platten & Renner &
John A. McBride, Wylie McBride Platten & Renner.

City Of San Jose, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Jennifer
Zoglin -- Katie.Zoglin@sanjoseca.gov -- Office of the City
Attorney & Matthew W. Pritchard --
Matthew.Pritchard@sanjoseca.gov -- Office of the City Attorney.


SARMA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Pinkney" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarma Collections,
Inc. The case is styled as James Pinkney, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sarma
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07387 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 19, 2017).

Sarma Collections Inc. has a broad range of products and services
to assist in maximizing recovery from delinquent accounts
resulting in rapid cash flow for clients since 1956. Its primary
services include pre-collect, bad debt collections, payment
monitoring and insurance re-billing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHURMAN FINE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schurman Fine
Papers. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Schurman Fine
Papers, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10155 (S.D. N.Y., December
28, 2017).

Schurman Fine Papers, Inc. retails personal expression and gift
products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SECURITY NATIONAL: Faces Gregory Haskin Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security National
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Gregory Haskin
Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., A Florida Corporation, a/a/o Delmar
Melton, and a/a/o Norman Maqsood, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Security National
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-62508-WPD (S.D.
Fla., December 19, 2017).

Security National Insurance Company operates as a stock property
and casualty insurer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Perez, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

      - and -

   Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
   Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A.
   9130 South Dadeland Blvd
   Datran II Center, Suite 1902
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (978) 621-4636
   Email: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com

      - and -

   Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   One Biscayne Tower
   2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Ari Gerstin, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   98 SE 7th Street, Suite 1100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: (305) 349-4656
   Email: ari.gerstin@akerman.com

      - and -

   Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   Three Brickell City Centre
   98 Southeast Seventh Street
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: 374-5095
   Email: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com

      - and -

   Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   Three Brickell City Centre
   98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: (305) 374-5095
   Email: ross.linzer@akerman.com


SH RESTAURANT: "Scotland" Suit Seeks Damages
--------------------------------------------
Tiara Scotland and Janaya Outerbridge, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SH
Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05561, (E.D. Pa., December 11,
2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

SH Restaurant operates as "Cedar Park Cafe," a diner located at
4914 Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19143 where Plaintiffs
worked as tipped servers, averaging 42 hours per work week,
relying solely on tips as compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Telephone: (877) 561-0000
     Facsimile: (855) JTB-LAWS
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SHAMROCK ALLIANCE: Jobes Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOBES, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. SHAMROCK
ALLIANCE, LLC d/b/a HUDDLE HOUSE and JASON MORGAN, Individually,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00073 (M.D. Tenn., November 29, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages.

Shamrock Alliance, LLC, is a Kentucky limited liability
corporation with its principal office located in Elizabethtown,
Kentucky.  Jason Morgan has been the President and/or Chief
Executive Officer of Shamrock Alliance, LLC at all times relevant
herein.

The Defendants own and operate Huddle House franchised
restaurants in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee and some of the
other Eastern states within the U.S.  The primary function of the
Defendants' Huddle House franchised restaurants is to sell and
serve food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


SIDNEY GARBER JEWELERS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sidney Garber
Jewelers, Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Sidney Garber
Jewelers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10144 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 28, 2017).

Sidney Garber Jewelers Inc operates as a jewelry store. The
Company offers rings, necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and
brooches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SIGNET GROUP: Faces "Chavez" Suit in Southern District of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signet Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signet Group, Inc.
doing business as: Kay Jewelers, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02544-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal., December 20, 2017).

Signet Group, Inc. is the world's largest retailer of diamond
jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Dept. of Corrections Faces "Lamb" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Carolina
Department of Corrections. The case is styled William David Lamb,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Dr Stacy
Smith, individually, Dr John B McCree, individually and Nurse
Tarcia James, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03427-
BHH-MGB (D. S.C., December 19, 2017).

The Defendants are government agencies and representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
   Bell Legal Group
   219 N Ridge Street
   Georgetown, SC 29440
   Tel: (843) 546-2408
   Fax: (843) 546-9604
   Email: ebell@edbelllaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Levitt-Malone Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM J. LEVITT and HERBERT C. MALONE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff -- Appellees, v.
GREGORY MARKOW, Objector, the Appellant, and SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
COMPANY, the Defendant -- Appellee, Case No. 17-3541 (7th Cir.,
Dec. 14, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court
of Appeals for the 7th Circuit from a lower court decision in a
fraud class action, Case No. 11-cv-08176 on Nov 16, 2011 (N.D.
Ill., Dec. 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellee:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Personal: (312) 236 0000

Attorneys for Gregory Markow:

          M. Frank Bednarz, Esq.
          COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE CENTER FOR CLASS
          ACTION FAIRNESS
          1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard
          Chicago, IL 60615
          Personal: 202-448-8742

Attorneys for Southwest Airlines Company:

          Michael William Drumke, Esq.
          SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
          330 N. Wabash
          Chicago, IL 60611-0000
          Personal: 312-222-8523

               - and -

          Leonard A. Gail, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL LLP
          50 E. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-2100
          Personal: (312) 283 1590

               - and -

          Huey Thomas Wells, Jr., Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 N. Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203-0000
          Personal: (205) 254 1062


SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gayle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Spark of Hope, LLC and David Lam, Case No. CACE-17-
022328 (Fla. Cir., December 11, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Michael Gayle worked for Defendants as Behavioral
Health Tech/Intake Coordinator from December 6, 2016 to March
2017.

Defendants owned and operate an addiction treatment center in
Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
      PERERA LAW GROUP, P.A.
      12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
      Davie, FL 33330
      Tel: (786) 485-5232
      E-mail: freddy@pereralaw.com


STEVENS TANKER: Summary Judgment Bid in "Espinosa" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL ESPINOSA, Plaintiff, v. STEVENS TANKER
DIVISION, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. SA-15-CV-339-XR (W.D.
Tex.), Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, (i) denied the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ii) granted in part and
denied in part the Dispatcher Class' Motion for Summary Judgment,
and (iii) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Espinosa's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff filed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated present and
former employees of the Defendant who were either misclassified
and/or not properly paid for all overtime due and/or not paid for
all hours worked.  The Plaintiff is a former employee of Stevens
and, during his employment, he was classified as an exempt
employee.  During the workweeks that he worked, he worked about
84 hours, but he was allegedly not paid for overtime or wages for
all hours worked.  The Plaintiff states he was misclassified as
exempt.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard failed to pay him overtime compensation,
and that he complained.  He alleges that the Defendant violated
provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA by employing employees
in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce for workweeks longer than 40 hours without
proper compensation for the work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff was an exempt employee in
accordance with the administrative exemption under the FLSA.  The
Plaintiff argues that he and opt-in class members engaged in work
that was clerical in nature, and thus, the administrative
exemption does not apply.

On May 31, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. On the same date, the Dispatcher Class filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff Espinosa filed an individual
Motion for Summary Judgment.  All the three motions were referred
to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad.

Magistrate Bemporad issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
evaluating the pending Motions for Summary Judgment on Nov. 9,
2017.  He found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether the administrative exemption applies to the
Defendant's dispatchers.  He also found that there was no genuine
dispute of material fact as to the administrative exemption not
applying to training periods, but that there was such a genuine
dispute as to what damages, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled.
The Magistrate Judge further found that there is a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether any misclassification on
being exempt was willful.  He finally found that although
Espinosa is not a member of the class because his consent was
untimely, he sufficiently states an individual claim to proceed.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), the parties were given 14 days to file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation.  On Nov. 27,
2017, the Defendant timely filed an objection.  It objects to
Magistrate Bemporad's recommendations to (i) deny its Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ii) grant the Plaintiff and the Class' Motions
for Summary Judgment finding that the administrative exemption is
inapplicable during the training period, and (iii) to grant the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment that his individual claim
should proceed.  The Plaintiff and the Dispatcher Class did not
file an objection.

Given the evidence presented by both parties as to the
dispatchers' primary duty, Judge Rodriguez accepts Magistrate
Bemporad's recommendation and finds there is a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the administrative exception applies
to the dispatcher role generally.  Accordingly, he says he needs
not analyze the competing claims as to whether dispatchers had a
primary duty that "includes the exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance."
He denies summary judgment as to whether the administrative
exemption applies generally to the Defendant's dispatchers.  The
Judge grants summary judgment that the administrative exception
does not apply when the Plaintiffs were in training, but denies
summary judgment as to the amount of damages for that training
period.

For the liquidated damages, given the evidence presented by both
parties related to liquidated damages and if the classification
was made in good faith, Judge Rodriguez accepts Magistrate
Bemporad's recommendation and finds there is a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the Plaintiffs may collect liquidated
damages and denies summary judgment.

With respect to Espinosa's class and individual claims, the Judge
accepts Magistrate Bemporad's recommendation and finds that there
is no genuine dispute of material fact that Espinosa's opt-in
participation in the FLSA class claim fails.  He also accepts
Magistrate Bemporad's recommendation that Espinosa sufficiently
states an individual claim, but only grants summary judgment as
to the fact that the training period does not fall under the
administrative exemption.

For these reasons, Judge Rodriguez accepts Magistrate Judge's
recommendations.  He (i) denied the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Dispatcher Class' Motion for Summary Judgment, and (iii) granted
in part and denied in part Plaintiff Espinosa's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/up9rJD from Leagle.com.

Michael Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio
Law Offices PC.

Michael Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Edwin
McJunkin, Law Office of Christopher E. McJunkin.

Kiya McChristian, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio
Law Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Lorrie Ellen Merritt, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio,
Poncio Law Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Melissa Wooten, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio Law
Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Mark Elwin Murray, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio
Law Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Carly Baker Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio
Law Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Juanita Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio Law
Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Louis M. Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio
Law Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Ariel Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Poncio, Poncio Law
Offices PC & Christopher Edwin McJunkin, Law Office of
Christopher E. McJunkin.

Stevens Tanker Division, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
C. Key, Key Harrington Barnes, PC & John L. Freeman, Key
Harrington Barnes, PC.


TANDOORI NORTH: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rodriguez Franco, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Tandoori North Inc. dba Indigo Indian
Bistro, Joginder Paul and Anil Kumar, Case No. 1:17-cv-09393
(S.D. N.Y., November 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
for violations of the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Joel Rodriguez Franco has been employed by Defendants
as a cook, dishwasher, porter and ostensibly as a delivery worker
at Indigo Indian Bistro, located at 283 Columbus Avenue, New
York, NY 10023.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control an Indian restaurant
located at 283 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10023, under the
name of Indigo Indian Bistro. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The TJX Companies,
Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v The TJX Companies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10152 (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017).

TJX is a discount retail chain featuring stylish brand-name
apparel, shoes and accessories, plus housewares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TJX COMPANIES: $8.5MM Settlement in "Chester" Suit Has Prelim OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACI CHESTER; DANIEL FRIEDMAN; ROBIN BERKOFF; and
THERESA METOYER, individually and o/b/o those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; TJ MAXX OF CA, LLC;
MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; HOMEGOODS, INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01437-ODW (DTB) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Class.

In the operative Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on Sept. 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs allege that from July 17,
2011 to the present, the Defendants have engaged in a deceptive
scheme advertising "sale" prices that were substantially lower
than the advertised "Compare At" prices for the products sold in
the Defendants' stores.  They further allege that the higher
Compare At prices were deceptive because they were not based on
actual prices that identical items sold for either in the
Defendants' stores or other retailers, and that Defendants failed
to adequately disclose to consumers what its Compare At reference
prices were intended to represent.  The Plaintiffs raise claims
under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
Section 17500, False Advertising Law, and California Civil Code
Section 1750, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify the class on March 1, 2017.  The
Defendants moved for summary judgment on April 21, 2017.  Before
the Court ruled on either motion, the parties notified the Court
that they reached a settlement, and the pending motions were
dismissed as moot.  On Sept. 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their
first motion for preliminary approval, which the Court denied
preliminary approval at that time, citing a deficiency in the
proposed class notice.  On Nov. 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed
their Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
and Certification of Settlement Class.

The parties seek to certify a class for settlement purposes only,
defined as all persons who in the State of California, and
between July 17, 2011 and the present, purchased from a T.J.
Maxx, Marshalls or HomeGoods store in California one or more
items with a TJX price tag that included a Compare At price, and
who have not received a refund or credit for all of their
purchase(s).  They estimate that there are approximately
8,000,000 members of the proposed class.

The parties' Settlement Agreement provides that TJX will
contribute $8,500,000 ("Monetary Component"), in return for a
release of claims against TJX.  The Monetary Component will be
used to pay: (i) the actual costs incurred in providing notice of
the settlement to the Class Members and the administration
thereof, but not to exceed $1,000,000; (ii) the award of
reasonable attorneys' fees for the class counsel, not to exceed
25% of the Monetary Component, plus costs, not to exceed $50,000;
and (iii) an incentive award to each class representative in the
amount of $7,500.

After these payments are made, the Monetary Component will be
distributed on a pro-rata basis in the form of TJX merchandise
credits to members of the Settlement Class who submit a valid
claim.  The value of the merchandise credit will be determined by
dividing the remaining value of the Monetary Component by the
number of Class Members who submit a valid claim.  The
merchandise credits will have no expiration date and need not be
used in full at any time.  They will maintain a running balance
that will be depleted based only on use until the claimant's
balance is zero.  No minimum purchase is required to use them.

Additionally, each merchandise credit will be fully
transferrable, stackable, and may be used in connection with any
promotional discounts that are otherwise available.  The
claimants will also have the option of redeeming an unused
merchandise credit for cash in an amount equal to 75% of the
merchandise credit at the time of its issuance by returning the
merchandise credit to the Claims Administrator within one year
after issuance.

The Settlement Agreement provides that JND Legal Administration
will serve as the Claims Administrator.  JND estimates that all
costs of notice and administration will not exceed $500,000, and
the parties have agreed to cap such costs at $1,000,000.  TJX
will provide JND with a list of customers, and their email or
physical mailing addresses, to the extent available.  Upon
receipt of the data, JND will promptly load it into a database
established for the case and prepare the notice for mailing.
Additionally, JND will create a dedicated case website to enable
Class Members to get more information about the litigation.

The Claims Administrator will provide notice to the Class Members
as follows:

      a. Email Notice: Where email addresses are available, the
Claims Administrator will email notice to Class Members within 30
days of the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement.

      b. Postcard Notice: Where only a physical address is
available for a member of the class, within 50 days of the
Court's preliminary approval, the Claims Administrator will mail
a postcard with a notice.

      c. Publication Notice: Within 60 days of the Court's
preliminary approval, the Claims Administrator will publish a
notice in the following publications: Parade Magazine (California
edition); USA Today; Los Angeles Times; San Francisco Chronicle;
San Diego Union-Tribune; Sacramento Bee; Orange County Register;
and San Jose Mercury News.

      d. In-Store Notice: Within 50 days of the Court's
preliminary approval, TJX will post near the exit in each of the
Defendants' California stores with tear-away instructions on how
to request a claim form and how to submit it.

Each form of notice will advise Class Members of the deadline for
submitting claim forms, their right to opt out of, or object to,
the Settlement Agreement, the process by which such opt-outs or
objections must be made, and the date set by the Court for a
hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the Monetary Component, the Settlement Agreement
provides that TJX will change the disclosure/definition of its
Compare At pricing on the Defendants' websites and California in-
store signage.  The amended disclosure will include language
indicating that: (i) TJX's comparison prices are references to
identical items or similar items; (ii) where TJX's comparison
price refers to an identical item, TJX is reasonably certain that
the comparison price does not appreciably exceed the price at
which substantial sales of the item are being made in the area;
and (iii) where the Compare At price refers to a similar item,
that item is of essentially similar quality and the comparison
price does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial
sales of the similar item are being made in the area.

TJX also agrees that its comparison pricing practices in
California as of the date of the Settlement Agreement, and
continuing forward, will not violate Federal or California law,
including California's specific price-comparison advertising
statutes and FTC regulations.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' arguments in their moving
papers, the accompanying declarations, and settlement agreement,
Judge Wright granted preliminary approval of the class action
settlement and conditionally certified the settlement class.  He
is also satisfied that the proposed notice is the best
practicable under the circumstances.

The four Named Plaintiffs will each receive $7,500, for a total
incentive award of $30,000, which is a small fraction of the
total Monetary Component.  Nothing about the incentive awards
suggests that the Plaintiffs might have been induced to accept a
subpar settlement.

For the attorneys' fees, Judge Wright will consider the specific
amount requested at the time the Plaintiffs move for attorneys'
fees, but at this stage, it notes no impropriety with reserving a
portion of the settlement amount for attorneys' fees.
  The Class counsel intends to seek attorneys' fees in an amount
not to exceed 25% of the Monetary Component.

Judge Wright vacated the hearing on the Motion.  A hearing on the
final approval of the class action certification and settlement,
as well as the Class Counsel's motion for fees and costs, will be
held on May 14, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6I3nvd from Leagle.com.

Staci Chester, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Morosoff
-- cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- Law Offices of Christopher J.
Morosoff.

Staci Chester, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa --
dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson -
- mdawson@hafif.com -- Law Offices of Herbert Hafif & Greg K.
Hafif -- ghafif@hafif.com -- Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Daniel Friedman, an individual; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
J. Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J Morosoff, Douglas
Caiafa, Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of
Herbert Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Robin Berkoff, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J Morosoff, Douglas Caiafa,
Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Theresa Metoyer, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J Morosoff, Douglas Caiafa,
Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

The TJX Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis --
Aliki.Sofis@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice,
Anne Johnson Palmer -- Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com -- Ropes
and Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh --
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, John P. Bueker --
John.Bueker@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice &
P. Craig Cardon -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richier & Hampton LLP.

TJ Maxx of CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis, Ropes and Gray LLP, pro
hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes and Gray LLP, Benjamin O.
Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey,
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, John P. Bueker, Ropes
and Gray LLP, pro hac vice & P. Craig Cardon, Sheppard Mullin
Richier & Hampton LLP.

Marshalls of CA, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Aliki
Sofis, Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer,
Ropes and Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP & P. Craig Cardon, Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton
LLP.

Homegoods, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis,
Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes and
Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, John P. Bueker, Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice & P. Craig
Cardon, Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton LLP.


TRANSAM TRUCKING: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fox et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE FOX, ANTHONY GILLESPIE, and CHARLES SCHRECKENBACH,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff Counter Defendant-Appellees. v. TRANSAM
TRUCKING, INC. and TRANSAM LEASING, INC., Defendant/
Counterclaimant-Appellants, Case No. 17-3272 (10th Cir, Dec. 19,
2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from a lower court decision in a
fraud class action, Case No. 2:12-CV-02706-JTM-GLR (D. Kan., Nov.
1, 2012).

Notice of appearance was due Jan. 4, 2018 for Candace Fox,
Anthony Gillespie, Charles Schreckenbach, TransAm Leasing, Inc.
and TransAm Trucking, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Counter Defendant-Appellees:

          Gregory P. Forney, Esq.
          Richard Frank Lombardo, Esq.
          Daniel M. Runion, Esq.
          SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
          2001 Wyandotte Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 931 0500

               - and -

          Gregory Leyh, Esq.
          GREGORY LEYH, P.C.
          104 NE 72nd Street, Suite A
          Gladstone, MO 64118-0000
          Telephone: (816) 283 3380

Attorneys for Defendant Counterclaimant - Appellants:

          Rachel H. Baker, Esq.
          Shannon D. Johnson, Esq.
          Christopher Marshall McHugh, Esq.
          SEIGFREID BINGHAM
          2323 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421 4460

               - and -

          Gregory S. Gerstner, Esq.
          BURRELL, SEIGFREID & BINHAM
          2800 Commerce Tower
          Kansas City, MO 64105-0000
          Telephone: (816) 421 4460

               - and -

          James C. Sullivan, Esq.
          POLSINELLI
          900 West 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753 1000


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Court Consolidates Two Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION
FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants; and CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
1:17 CV 1677, 1:17 CV 1958 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate
and for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Motion for Approval of
its Selection of Lead Counsel.

Plaintiff City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund filed the
first action against TransDigm on Aug. 17, 2017, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of TransDigm between May 10,
2016 and Jan. 19, 2017.  The second action was filed on Sept. 18,
2017, by the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of TransDigm
between May 10, 2016 and March 21, 2017.  Both actions allege
that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, during the Class Periods.

The Complaints allege that during the class periods, TransDigm
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's
operations, business, and prospects.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs' allege that TransDigm failed to disclose that it used
shell distributors it controlled to make noncompetitive
government bids seem competitive, monopolistic tactics to hike
the prices of its proprietary products, and a variety of tactics
to evade government oversight of its cost structure and avoid
government scrutiny.  As a consequence, they assert that
TransDigm's growth and profitability during the class period were
artificially inflated and that TransDigm shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Hollywood Firefighters moves pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") for appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff and approval of its counsel, Saxena White P.A., as
the Lead Counsel and Climaco Wilcox Peca & Garofoli Co., LPA to
serve as the Local Counsel for the class.  Similarly, District
No. 9, I.A. of M. & A.W. Pension Trust, moves for appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff, and approval of its counsel, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, as the Lead Counsel and Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, LLC as the Local Counsel.

Judge Nugent finds that Hollywood Firefighters has satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23.  Having determined that Hollywood
Firefighters has demonstrated that it has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class and that it otherwise
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, Hollywood Firefighters
will be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff.

In addition, he finds that Saxena White has extensive experience
in prosecuting complex litigation on behalf of shareholders and
has acted as lead or co-lead counsel in a number of major
securities class and derivative actions nationwide.  There has
been no evidence presented to the Court that would indicate that
Saxena White is not capable of prosecuting this action in the
best interests of the putative class.  Similarly, there is no
evidence to override Hollywood Firefighters' selection of Climaco
Wilcox Peca & Garofoli, as the local counsel.  Climaco Wilcox is
a local Cleveland firm specialized in prosecuting complex
litigation.  Accordingly, Hollywood Firefighters' selection of
the lead counsel and the local counsel will be approved.

Accordingly, Judge Nugent granted The Motion of Hollywood
Firefighters' to Consolidate and for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Motion for Approval of its Selection of Lead
Counsel.  The related actions are consolidated as In re TransDigm
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17 CV 1677.

The file in Case No. 1:17 CV 1677 will constitute the master file
for every action in the consolidated action.  When the document
being filed pertains to all actions, the phrase "All Actions"
will appear immediately after the phrase "This Document Relates
To:."  When a pleading applies to some, but not all, of the
actions, the document will list, immediately after the phrase
"This Document Relates To:," the docket number for each
individual action to which the document applies, along with the
last name of the first-listed
plaintiff in said action.

All securities class actions against any or all of the defendants
subsequently filed in, or transferred to, the District will be
consolidated into the action.  The Order will apply to every such
action, absent an order of the Court.  A party objecting to such
consolidation, or to any other provision of the Order, must file
an application for relief from the Order within 10 days after the
action is consolidated into the action.

The Judge appointed Hollywood Firefighters to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in the consolidated action.
Hollywood Firefighters' selection of Lead Counsel is also
approved, and Saxena White P.A. is appointed as the Lead Counsel
for the Class, and Climaco Wilcox Peca & Garofoli Co., LPA is
appointed as the Local Counsel for the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/xDy3to from Leagle.com.

City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman.

City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Tricia L. McCormick -- TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Brian E. Cochran --
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, David C.
Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Drew
T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Henry Rosen --
henryr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, pro hac vice
& Thomas C. Michaud, Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony.

TransDigm Group Incorporated, Defendant, represented by James A.
Slater, Jr. -- jslater@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler.

W. Nicholas Howley, Defendant, represented by James A. Slater,
Jr., Baker & Hostetler.

Terrance M Paradie, Defendant, represented by James A. Slater,
Jr., Baker & Hostetler.

District No. 9, I.A. of M. & A.W. Pension Trust, Movant,
represented by Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman.


UK CLEANERS: "Camano" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Camano, Hugo S. Ramirez, and Jose Angel Rojas,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. U.K.
Cleaners, Inc. dba Turtle Bay Cleaners, Sook Hyun Kim, and In Ja
Gwon, Case No. 1:17-cv-09460 (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants, primarily
employed in performing the duties of ironing clothes.

Defendant Turtle Bay Cleaners is a full service dry
cleaner/laundromat owned by Defendants Sook Hyun Kim and In Ja
Gwon, located at 911 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


UNITED STATES: 66 Upstream Cases Consolidated Under 17-9001L
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 17-1277L, 17-1374L,
17-1409L, 17-1459L, 17-1460L, 17-1559L, 17-1569L, 17-1582L, 17-
1636L, 17-1650L, 17-1652-1L, 17-1665L, 17-1666L, 17-1667L, 17-
1668L, 17-1669L, 17-1670L, 17-1671L, 17-1672L, 17-1673L, 17-
1674L, 17-1675L, 17-1676L, 17-1677L, 17-1678L, 17-1692L, 17-
1693L, 17-1694L, 17-1695L, 17-1696L, 17-1697L, 17-1698L, 17-
1699L, 17-1700L, 17-1701L, 17-1702L, 17-1703L, 17-1704L, 17-
1705L, 17-1706L, 17-1707L, 17-1708L, 17-1709L, 17-1710L, 17-
1711L, 17-1712L, 17-1713L, 17-1714L, 17-1716L, 17-1717L, 17-
1718L, 17-1719L, 17-1720L, 17-1721L, 17-1722L, 17-1723L, 17-
1724L, 17-1726L, 17-1727L, 17-1728L, 17-1729L, 17-1730L, 17-
1780L, 17-1786L, 17-1798L, 17-1805L, Master No. 17-3000L (Fed.
Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
has entered an order establishing sub-master docket for upstream
claims.

During the Oct. 6, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 hearings convened in
Houston, the Court was advised that putative class action
complaints and individual complaints with upstream claims
affecting approximately 10,000 to 16,000 private property
interests are or will be filed in the Court.

To promote the efficient administration of justice, Judge Braden
consolidated the identified cases for pretrial management, as
well as any subsequently filed directly or indirectly related
cases, as defined in Rule 40.2 of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), that are identified as upstream
cases.

She directed the Clerk of Court to create a Sub-Master Docket, In
re Upstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs,
Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9001L.

Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 20, 2017 Orders, the following U.S.
Court of Federal Claims judges have been assigned in In re
Upstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs,
Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9001L: (i) the Hon. Charles F. Lettow
has been assigned to this Sub-Master Docket to manage
jurisdictional discovery and adjudicate issues presented by any
motion filed, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1)-(7); and (ii) the Hon.
Eric G. Bruggink has been assigned to this Sub-Master Docket to
manage pre-trial discovery and adjudicate all pre-trial
dispositive motions.

Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 20, 2017 Orders, the following
counsel have been appointed in In re Upstream Addicks and Barker
(Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs, Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9001L:
(i) Mr. Ian Gershengorn, the Co-Lead Counsel; Mr. Larry Vincent,
the Co-Lead Counsel; and Mr. Vuk Vujasinovic, Of Counsel, have
been appointed For Jurisdictional Discovery; (ii) Mr. Daniel
Charest, the Co-Lead Counsel; Mr. Charles Irvine, the Co-Lead
Counsel; Mr. Larry Vincent, the Co-Lead Counsel; and Mr. E.
Armistead Easterby, the Co-Lead Counsel, have been appointed For
Pre-Trial Discovery And Dispositive Motions.

The Judge also directed the Clerk of Court to docket the Order
and the following Notice in each of the referenced consolidated
upstream cases as well as in In re Addicks and Barker (Texas)
Flood-Control Reservoirs, Master Docket 17-3000L:

     NOTICE: Sub-Master Docket, In re Upstream Addicks and Barker
(Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs, Sub-Docket No. 17-9001L, has
been opened and assigned to the Hon. Charles F. Lettow for the
management of jurisdictional discovery and the adjudication of
issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1)-
(7), and to the Hon. Eric G. Bruggink for the management of pre-
trial discovery and the adjudication of all pre-trial dispositive
motions.  From this date and until further order, all filings in
these consolidated upstream cases will be filed in this Sub-
Master Docket.

From the date of the Order and until further Order, all future
filings in these consolidated upstream cases will be made in the
Sub-Master Docket and will bear the following caption:  In the
United States Court of Federal Claims In re UPSTREAM ADDICKS AND
BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Sub-Master Docket No. 17-
9001L THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO:

     a. A filing that is applicable to all of these consolidated
upstream cases will state in the caption that it applies to all
upstream cases.  Such filing will be made in this Sub-Master
Docket only but will be deemed filed and docketed in each
individual case to the extent applicable.

     b. A filing that applies only to a particular case(s) will
state in the caption the applicable case number(s) and the last
name(s) of the named plaintiff(s).  The filing will be made in
this Sub-Master Docket and the Clerk of Court will docket the
filing in each applicable case.

     c. The motions to substitute counsel in individual cases and
notices of appearance by the government will be filed in the
individual case dockets only.

When a directly or indirectly related case that is identified as
an upstream case subsequently is filed, the Clerk of Court is
directed to (i) make an appropriate entry in this Sub-Master
Docket; (ii) docket a copy of this Order in the newly filed case;
and (iii) docket a copy of the Notice, identified, in the newly
filed case.

The Order will apply to all subsequently filed or transferred
cases that are directly or indirectly related and identified as
upstream cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Management Order is
available at https://is.gd/MkJ3id from Leagle.com.

IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Allen Craig Eiland, The Law Offices of
A. Craig Eiland, P.C..

IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Glenn Buzbee, The Buzbee Law
Firm, Bryant Steven Banes, Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, Charles W.
Irvine -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Irvine & Conner, LLC,
Christopher Stephen Johns -- cjohns@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs,
Ellis & Hodge LLP, Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P.,
David Charles Frederick, Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek Heath
Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, Don C. Griffin -- dgriffin@velaw.com
-- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Edward Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP,
Edwin Armistead Easterby, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell & Nowak, Howard L. Nations --
nations@howardnations.com -- Nations Law Firm, Ian P. Cloud --
icloud@robinscloud.com -- Robins Cloud LLP, Jack Edward McGehee -
- jmcgehee@lawtx.com -- McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Jared
R. Woodfill, Woodfill Law Firm, P.C., Jason A. Itkin, Arnold &
Itkin, LLP, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC,
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Raizner Slania LLP, John Scott Black, Daly &
Black, P.C., Kurt B. Arnold, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, Luke Joseph
Ellis -- lellis@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP,
Michael C. Falick -- mfalick@rothfelderfalick.com -- Rothfelder &
Falick, L.L.P., Minh-Tam Tammy Tran -- ttran@tt-lawfirm.com --
Tammy Tran Law Firm, Noah Michael Wexler, Arnold & Itkin, LLP,
Rand P. Nolen, Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P., Rene Michelle Sigman
-- rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com -- Merlin Law Group, Riley L.
Burnett, Jr., Burnett Law Firm, Steven John Mitby --
mitby@azalaw.com -- Ahmad Zavitsanos, et al., Timothy Micah
Dortch -- Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully, PC,
Vuk Vujasinovic, VB Attorneys & William Fred Hagans --
whagans@hagans.law -- Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C..

ZHENG LUO, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown --
jacqueline.c.brown@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: 86 Upstream Cases Consolidated Under 17-9002L
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 17-1189L, 17-1191L,
17-1194L, 17-1195L, 17-1206L, 17-1215L, 17-1216L, 17-1232L, 17-
1235L, 17-1300L, 17-1303L, 17-1332L, 17-1390L, 17-1391L, 17-
1393L, 17-1394L, 17-1395L, 17-1396L, 17-1397L, 17-1398L, 17-
1399L, 17-1408L, 17-1423L, 17-1427L, 17-1428L, 17-1430L, 17-
1433L, 17-1434L, 17-1435L, 17-1436L, 17-1437L, 17-1438L, 17-
1439L, 17-1450L, 17-1451L, 17-1453L, 17-1454L, 17-1456L, 17-
1457L, 17-1458L, 17-1461L, 17-1512L, 17-1514L, 17-1515L, 17-
1516L, 17-1517L, 17-1518L, 17-1519L, 17-1520L, 17-1521L, 17-
1522L, 17-1523L, 17-1524L, 17-1525L, 17-1545L, 17-1555L, 17-
1564L, 17-1565L, 17-1566L, 17-1567L, 17-1577L, 17-1578L, 17-
1588L, 17-1625L, 17-1645L, 17-1646L, 17-1647L, 17-1652-2L, 17-
1653L, 17-1679L, 17-1680L, 17-1681L, 17-1682L, 17-1683L, 17-
1684L, 17-1685L, 17-1686L, 17-1687L, 17-1688L, 17-1689L, 17-
1748L, 17-1814L, 17-1822L, 17-1828L, 17-1833L, 17-1834L, Master
No. 17-3000L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims has entered an order establishing sub-master
docket for upstream claims.

During the Oct. 6, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 hearings convened in
Houston, the Court was advised that putative class action
complaints and individual complaints with downstream claims
affecting approximately 4,000 private property interests are or
will be filed in the Court.

To promote the efficient administration of justice, Judge Braden
consolidated the identified cases for pretrial management, as
well as any subsequently filed directly or indirectly related
cases, as defined in Rule 40.2 of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), that are identified as
downstream cases.

She directed the Clerk of Court to create a Sub-Master Docket, In
re Downstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control
Reservoirs, Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9002L.

Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 20, 2017 Orders, the following
United States Court of Federal Claims judges have been assigned
in In re Downstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control
Reservoirs, Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9002L: (i) Susan G. Braden
has been assigned to this Sub-Master Docket to manage
jurisdictional discovery and adjudicate issues presented by any
motion filed, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1)-(7); and (ii) the Hon.
Marian Blank Horn has been assigned to this Sub-Master Docket to
manage pre-trial discovery and adjudicate all pre-trial
dispositive motions.

Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 20, 2017 Orders, the following
counsel have been appointed in In re Downstream Addicks and
Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs, Sub-Master Docket No.
17-9001L: (i) Mr. William S. Consovoy, the Co-Lead Counsel; Mr.
David C. Frederick, the Co-Lead Counsel; Mr. Jack E. McGehee, Of
the Counsel, have been appointed For Jurisdictional Discovery;
(ii) Mr. Rand P. Nolen, the Co-Lead Counsel; Mr. Derek Potts, the
Co-Lead Counsel; Mr. Richard W. Mithoff, the Co-Lead Counsel,
have been appointed For Pre-Trial Discovery And Dispositive
Motions.

The Judge also directed the Clerk of Court to docket the Order
and the following Notice in each of the above-referenced
consolidated downstream cases as well as in In re Addicks and
Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs, Master Docket 17-3000L::

     Notice: Sub-Master Docket, In re Downstream Addicks and
Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs, Sub-Docket No. 17-9002L,
has been opened and assigned to the Honorable Susan G. Braden for
the management of jurisdictional discovery and the adjudication
of issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to RCFC
12(b)(1)-(7), and to the Honorable Marian Blank Horn for the
management of pre-trial discovery and the adjudication of all
pre-trial dispositive motions. From this date and until further
order, all filings in these consolidated downstream cases will be
filed in this Sub-Master Docket.

From the date of the Order and until further Order, all future
filings in these consolidated downstream cases will be made in
the Sub-Master Docket and will bear the following caption: In the
United States Court of Federal Claims In re DOWNSTREAM ADDICKS
AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Sub-Master Docket No.
17-9001L THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO:

     a. A filing that is applicable to all of these consolidated
downstream cases will state in the caption that it applies to all
downstream cases.  Such filing will be made in the Sub-Master
Docket only but will be deemed filed and docketed in each
individual case to the extent applicable.

     b. A filing that applies only to a particular case(s) will
state in the caption the applicable case number(s) and the last
name(s) of the named plaintiff(s).  The filing will be made in
this Sub-Master Docket and the Clerk of Court will docket the
filing in each applicable case.

     c. The motions to substitute counsel in individual cases and
notices of appearance by the government will be filed in the
individual case dockets only.

When a directly or indirectly related case that is identified as
a downstream case subsequently is filed, the Clerk of Court is
directed to (i) make an appropriate entry in this Sub-Master
Docket; (ii) docket a copy of this Order in the newly filed case;
and (iii) docket a copy of the Notice, identified, in the newly
filed case.

The Order will apply to all subsequently filed or transferred
cases that are directly or indirectly related and identified as
upstream cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lnzW8v from Leagle.com.

IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Allen Craig Eiland, The Law Offices of
A. Craig Eiland, P.C..

IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Glenn Buzbee, The Buzbee Law
Firm, Bryant Steven Banes, Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, Charles W.
Irvine -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Irvine & Conner, LLC,
Christopher Stephen Johns -- cjohns@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs,
Ellis & Hodge LLP, Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P.,
David Charles Frederick, Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek Heath
Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, Don C. Griffin -- dgriffin@velaw.com
-- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Edward Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP,
Edwin Armistead Easterby, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell & Nowak, Howard L. Nations --
nations@howardnations.com -- Nations Law Firm, Ian P. Cloud --
icloud@robinscloud.com -- Robins Cloud LLP, Jack Edward McGehee -
- jmcgehee@lawtx.com -- McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Jared
R. Woodfill, Woodfill Law Firm, P.C., Jason A. Itkin, Arnold &
Itkin, LLP, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC,
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Raizner Slania LLP, John Scott Black, Daly &
Black, P.C., Kurt B. Arnold, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, Luke Joseph
Ellis -- lellis@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP,
Michael C. Falick -- mfalick@rothfelderfalick.com -- Rothfelder &
Falick, L.L.P., Minh-Tam Tammy Tran -- ttran@tt-lawfirm.com --
Tammy Tran Law Firm, Noah Michael Wexler, Arnold & Itkin, LLP,
Rand P. Nolen, Fleming, Nolen & Jez, L.L.P., Rene Michelle Sigman
-- rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com -- Merlin Law Group, Riley L.
Burnett, Jr., Burnett Law Firm, Steven John Mitby --
mitby@azalaw.com -- Ahmad Zavitsanos, et al., Timothy Micah
Dortch -- Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully, PC,
Vuk Vujasinovic, VB Attorneys & William Fred Hagans --
whagans@hagans.law -- Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C..

ZHENG LUO, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown --
jacqueline.c.brown@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Camesi et al. File Appeal in 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CAMESI, ERIN O'CONNELL, LORI SHAFFER, and DINAH BAKER, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiff-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL
CENTER, the Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-3746 (3rd Cir, Dec.
19, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from a lower court decision in a
fraud class action, Case No. 3-09-cv-00085 (W.D. Pa., Apr. 1,
2009).

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellants:

          Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272 0570

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee:

          James F. Glunt, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288 4121

               - and -

          John J. Myers, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
          600 Grant Street
          44th Floor, US Steel Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566 6000


US XPRESS: Morgan Files Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
---------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morgan, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S.
Xpress, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00085 (W.D. Va., December
11, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unsolicited tele-recruitment calls and activities; all expenses
of this action; and such other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

U.S. Xpress, Inc. sent Mr. Morgan prerecorded telephone calls
without his consent and used automated telephone equipment or
auto-dialers with a prerecorded voice. US Xpress is a freight and
logistics company that attempted to recruit him a driver. BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Hissam, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Tel: (304) 345-6555
      Email: mhissam@baileyglasser.com


VEP HEALTHCARE: "Hunt" Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY HUNT, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. VEP HEALTHCARE, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-04790-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Hunt's unopposed
Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective
Action Settlement.

The Judge finds on a preliminary basis that the provisions of the
Agreement, filed with the Court on Dec. 1, 2017, are fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, meet the requirements
for preliminary approval.

He conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only, the
FLSA Collective described in the Motion for Preliminary Approval
as all individuals employed by VEP Healthcare anywhere in the
United States as Physician's Assistants who were eligible to
receive productivity pay from April 6, 2012 through May 15, 2017.

He certified, for settlement purposes only, the California Class
described in the Motion for Preliminary Approval as all
individuals employed by VEP Healthcare as Physician's Assistants
in the state of California who were eligible to receive
productivity pay from April 6, 2011 to May 15, 2017.

Judge Chhabria appointed Emily Hunt, as the Class/Collective
Representative Emily Hunt; William Turley, David Mara, and Jill
Vecchi of The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, as the
Class/Collective Counsel; and CPT Group, Inc. as the Class
Administrator.

He approved (i) the Notice of Collective and Class Action
Settlement and (ii) the FLSA Settlement Claim Form and Release of
Claims attached to the Joint Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement.  The Class Administrator is ordered to mail the Notice
of Collective and Class Action Settlement and FLSA Claim Form to
the California Class and FLSA Collective Members as provided in
the Agreement.

Each Participating California Class and FLSA Collective Member
will have 45 days after the date on which the Class Administrator
mails the Class/Collective Notice to object to the settlement by
mailing a written objection to the Class Action Clerk, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

Each California Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the
settlement will sign and mail a written request for exclusion to
the Settlement Administrator and must be postmarked no later than
45 days after the Settlement Administrator first mails the Notice
to the Class.

Each FLSA Collective Member who wishes to participate in the
settlement of the FLSA Collective claims, will be required to
submit the FLSA Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator within
45 days of the Notice of Collective and Class Action Settlement
and FLSA Claim Form being mailed out.  To be a valid claim
submission, the FLSA Claim Form must be post-marked no later than
45 days after the Notice and FLSA Claim Form were mailed out by
the Administrator.

Judge Chhabria modified the proposed timeline from the renewed
motion for preliminary approval.  The following deadlines reflect
seven-day extensions from the dates listed in the renewed motion,
as well as a new date for the fairness hearing based on the
Court's availability:

     a. Defendant's Production of Class/Collective List to
Administrator - Dec. 14, 2017

     b. Administrator Sends Settlement Notice to Class/Collective
Members - Dec. 21, 2017

     c. Plaintiff Files Motion for Attorney's Fee and Enhancement
Award - Jan. 19, 2018

     d. Motion for Final Approval Deadline for Exclusion or to
Object to the Settlement - Feb. 4, 2018

     e. Filing of Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for
Final - Feb. 8, 2018

     f. Approval to Address Class/Collective Member Response
Submission of Settlement Administrator's Declaration to the Court
- March 1, 2018

     g. Final Approval Hearing - March 15, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/U5cZmV from Leagle.com.

Emily Hunt, Plaintiff, represented by William David Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC.

Emily Hunt, Plaintiff, represented by David Thomas Mara --
dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie
Vecchi --     jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley & Mara Law
Firm, APLC & Katharine McCall -- khmccall22@gmail.com -- The
Turley Law Firm, APLC.

VEP Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hannibal Paul
Odisho -- hodisho@aghwlaw.com -- Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood &
Werth LLP & Steven Douglas Werth -- swerth@aghwlaw.com -- Allen,
Glaessner & Werth, LLP.


VOLVO CARS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNE NEALE, KELLY MCGARY SVEIN A. BERG, GREGORY P.
BURNS, JEFFREY KRUGER, and KAREN COLLOPY individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC and VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 10-4407 (JLL) (D. N.J.), Judge Jose L. Linares of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

The case involves a potential putative class action brought by
six Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and five state
subclasses of current and former Volvo vehicle owners and
lessees.  They allege that the Defendants sold certain vehicles
with defective sunroof drainage systems.  The Named Plaintiffs
all either owned or leased one of the Class Vehicles with a
sunroof, and experienced damage resulting from the aforementioned
alleged defect.

The Plaintiffs assert that a uniform design effect existed in the
sunroof drainage systems in six Volvo vehicle models: the S40,
S60, S80, V70 (model years 2004 to 2011), XC9O (model years 2003
to 2011), and V50 (model years 2005 to 2011).  They allege that
the Defendants knew of the material design defect based on
numerous consumer complaints, internal Volvo communications, and
Technical Service Bulletins issued by Volvo in an unsuccessful
attempt to solve the problem.

The Plaintiffs filed an initial Motion for Class Certification in
the Court before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on Aug. 7, 2012.
Judge Cavanaugh issued an Opinion on March 26, 2013 denying their
motion to certify a nationwide class, but certifying their
proposed state subclasses.

The Plaintiffs proposed a nationwide class of all persons or
entities in the United States who are current or former owners
and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.  The Plaintiffs also proposed
a series of state subclasses consisting of:

     i. All persons or entities in Massachusetts who are current
or former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

     ii. All persons or entities in Florida who are current or
former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

     iii. All persons or entities in Hawaii who are current or
former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

     iv. All persons or entities in New Jersey who are current or
former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

     v. All persons or entities in California who are current or
former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

     vi. All persons or entities in Maryland who are current or
former owners and or lessees of a Class Vehicle.

The Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration, which
Judge Cavanaugh also denied.  They subsequently filed an appeal,
and the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating the District
Court's certification of the state subclasses and remanding the
case to the District Court.  On remand, the Third Circuit
requested that the Court defines the class membership, claims,
and defenses, and. rigorously analyze predominance in the first
instance.

The Plaintiffs now seek certification of five state subclasses
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2).

Judge Linares holds that has doubts as to the clarity of the
Plaintiffs' class definitions as well as the ascertainability of
each subclass.  He explains that in Maniscalco v. Brother Int'l
(USA) Corp., the Third Circuit addressed the choice-of-law
problem in a class action based on a defective product.  Where a
fraud or misrepresentation claim has been alleged, the court
looks to the factors set forth in Section 148 of the Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws.

These factors are: (a) the place, or places, where the plaintiff
acted in reliance upon the defendant's representations, (b) the
place where the plaintiff received the representations, (c) the
place where the defendant made the representations, (d) the
domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and
place of business of the parties, (e) the place where a tangible
thing which is the subject of the transaction between the parties
was situated at the time, and (f) the place where the plaintiff
is to render performance under a contract which he has been
induced to enter by the false representations of the defendant.

Here, the Judge finds that the class definitions ensure that the
state named in the subclass is the state where the car was
located at the time of the transaction.  Thus, factor (e) weighs
in favor of the place of purchase, yet factors (b) and (d) weigh
in favor of the state of residence.  The Defendants are right to
note that the increase of automobile purchases over the Internet
makes it increasingly unlikely that a buyer or lessee resides in
the same state where he or she purchased the automobile.  Despite
the permissibility of individual inquiries to identify certain
class members, the Judge still finds that the putative state
subclasses are not "defined with reference to objective criteria.

With respect to ascertainability, Judge Linares still finds holes
in the reliability of the Plaintiffs' scheme to identify class
members.  As the Defendants suggest, the bulk of the class is
likely to consist of former owners who must still prove the state
in which they purchased the Class Vehicle.  Using the CARFAX
report appears administratively feasible for current owners, but
for former owners who no longer know or possess the VIN number of
their former Class Vehicle, such a method could be unwieldy.  The
Plaintiffs' have given no indication that such transactions show
up on a CARFAX report, and in fact the CARFAX report for Mr.
Berg's XC9O shows no transaction in July 2010.  Nor have they
shown that such private person-to-person transactions show up in
IHS data.  Given the issues stated, he finds that the Plaintiffs'
proposed state subclasses are not ascertainable.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(2)
settlement class.  They suggest that any class certified pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2) can apply only to those class members that
currently own Class Vehicles, however, Judge Linares finds that
the Plaintiffs do not propose a separate class definition for
this class, and the split between current and former owners of
the Class Vehicles remains relevant.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requests that the Court appoint McCune
Wright Arevalo LLP as co-lead counsel, alongside Chimicles &
Tikellis and Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman.  The Judge reserves
decision on this request until the Plaintiffs, if they so choose,
move to recertify the class.

For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Linares denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) without prejudice, and
with leave to move to recertify in a manner that is consistent
with the guidance set forth.  An appropriate order accompanies
the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/MXKTiv from Leagle.com.

JOANNE NEALE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS --
benjohns@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP.

JOANNE NEALE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC D. KATZ --
ekatz@mskf.net  -- MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC, MATTHEW D.
SCHELKOPF -- mds@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP,
DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLP., MATTHEW ROSS
MENDELSOHN -- mmendelsohn@mazieslater.com -- MAZIE SLATER KATZ &
FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH G. SAUDER -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- McCune
Wright, LLP.

KERI HAY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS, CHIMICLES
& TIKELLIS, LLP, MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP,
DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLP., MATTHEW ROSS
MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH G. SAUDER,
McCune Wright, LLP.

David Taft, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS,
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP, DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLP.,
MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH
G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

Jeffrey Kruger, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS,
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP, DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLP.,
MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH
G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

Karen Collopy, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS,
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP, DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLP.,
MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH
G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

KELLY MCGARY, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by MATTHEW ROSS
MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC, MATTHEW D.
SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, BENJAMIN F. JOHNS,
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC &
JOSEPH G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

SVEIN A. BERG, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by MATTHEW
ROSS MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC, MATTHEW D.
SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, BENJAMIN F. JOHNS,
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC & JOSEPH G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

Gregory P Burns, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by BENJAMIN
F. JOHNS, CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP, MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune
Wright Arevalo LLP, DAVID A. MAZIE, MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ &
FREEMAN, LLP., MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN, MAZIE SLATER KATZ &
FREEMAN LLC & JOSEPH G. SAUDER, McCune Wright, LLP.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, represented by MARK
STEWART KUNDLA, HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON AND POLETTO & PAUL DALY,
HARDIN KUNDLA MCKEON & POLETTO.

VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MARK STEWART
KUNDLA, HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON AND POLETTO & PAUL DALY, HARDIN
KUNDLA MCKEON & POLETTO.


WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Sues Over Un-refunded Sales Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Pearlstone, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02856, (E.D. Mo.,
December 11, 2017), seeks actual or compensatory damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and such further and other relief resulting from breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff purchased green beans, vitamins
and salsa from a Wal-Mart Store located at 201 Highlands
Boulevard, Manchester MO.  On October 3, 2017, Pearlstone
attempted to return the said items and was refunded the retail
purchase price of each item, but not all of the sales taxes
attributable to each returned item in violation of their return
policy.

Defendant is a multinational corporation with more than 11,695
retail stores operating under 63 different names in 28 countries.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Paul T. Geske, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             pgeske@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com

             - and -

      Lanny Darr, Esq.
      DARR FIRM
      307 Henry Street, Ste. 406
      Alton, IL 62002
      Tel: (618) 208-6828
      Fax: (618) 433-8519
      Email: darr@darrfirm.com


WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Weekly Wages, "Meynard" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Derell J. Meynard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07198 (E.D. N.Y., December 11, 2017),
seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest for failure to pay wages on a weekly basis
pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Whole Foods operates a nationwide chain of grocery stores where
Meynard worked at their store located in Manhasset, New York as a
manual laborer. Meynard complained that his wages came every two
weeks instead of weekly as mandated by law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Steven John Moser, Esq.
       3 School Street, Suite 207B
       Glen Cove, NY 11542
       Tel: (516) 671-1150
       Fax: (516) 882-5420
       Email: stevenjmoserpc@gmail.com


XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses "Csoka" Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case
styled JEFFREY CSOKA, derivatively on behalf of XOMA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v. JOHN VARIAN, PAUL D. RUBIN, PATRICK J. SCANNON,
WILLIAM K. BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT, JOSEPH M. LIMBER, W.
DENMAN VAN NESS, TIMOTHY P. WALBERT, AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI,
Defendants, And XOMA CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
3:15-CV-05429-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Markette filed a securities class action lawsuit against XOMA,
Varian, and Rubin relating to XOMA's EYEGUARD-B study in the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California, Markette v. XOMA
Corp. on July 24, 2015 ("Securities Action").  Fieser filed the
related shareholder derivative action, Fieser v. W. Denman Van
Ness on Nov. 16, 2015 ("Fieser Derivative Action"), naming the
Individual Defendants, and XOMA as Nominal Defendant.  Plaintiff
Csoka filed a related shareholder derivative action in the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California, Csoka v. John
Varian, et. al. on Nov. 25, 2015 ("Csoka Derivative Action").

As of April 25, 2016, both the Fieser Derivative Action and the
Csoka Derivative Action are before Hon. Jon S. Tigar.  On May 6,
2016, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the Fieser
Derivative Action, which stated they agree that the ruling on any
anticipated motions to dismiss in the Securities Action may help
inform the manner in which the Derivative Action proceeds.

On May 9, 2016, the Court stayed the Fieser Derivative Action
pending future developments in the Securities Action.  On May 19,
2016, the Court stayed the Csoka Derivative Action pending future
developments in the Securities Action.

On Aug. 19, 2016, the Court ordered the Fieser and Csoka
Derivative Actions related.  On Sept. 2, 2016, the Defendants
filed a motion dismiss the Securities Action.  On Oct. 7, 2016,
Plaintiff Markette filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.  On Oct. 21, 2016, the Defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 14, 2016, the Court in the Securities Action took the
pending motion to dismiss filings under submission.  On May 26,
2017, the Court in the Securities Action ordered the parties in
that action to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing in light
of the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in City of Dearborn Heights
Act 345 Police & Retirement Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc.

On June 9, 2017, both parties in the Securities Action filed
supplemental briefing in support of their respective motion to
dismiss filings.  On Sept. 28, 2017, the Court in the Securities
Action granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint without prejudice and entered an order
requiring the Plaintiff to file and serve an amended class action
complaint by Oct. 26, 2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Court in the Securities Action granted the
parties' Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), in which Plaintiff
Markette voluntarily dismissed the Securities Action with
prejudice as to his individual claims, and without prejudice as
to the unnamed class members.

The Parties have met and conferred in good faith, and Plaintiff
Csoka has agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  They agree that each party will bear its own
fees and costs related to the action.  Given this stipulation of
dismissal, the Parties agree that the order regarding ADR issued
on Nov. 27, 2017 is moot.

Judge Tigar granted the Parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LhOoWc from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CcHCYV from Leagle.com.

Deborah A. Fieser, derivatively on behalf of Xoma Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by James Robert Noblin, Green & Noblin,
P.C..

Deborah A. Fieser, derivatively on behalf of Xoma Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green -- rsg@classcounsel.com
-- Green & Noblin, P.C..

W. Denman Van Ness, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria -- santamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison
Main -- amain@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette --
bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

William K. Bowes, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jessica
Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley
LLP.

Peter Barton Hutt, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Joseph M. Limber, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Kelvin M. Neu, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Patrick J. Scannon, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

John Varian, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Timothy P. Walbert, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Paul D. Rubin, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Jack L. Wyszomierski, Defendant, represented by Jessica
Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley
LLP.

Xoma Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Defendant, represented by
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main,
Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer,
Cooley LLP.


XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses "Feiser" Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case
styled DEBORAH A. FIESER, derivatively on behalf of XOMA
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. W. DENMAN VAN NESS, WILLIAM K. BOWES,
JR., PETER BARTON HUTT, JOSEPH M. LIMBER, KELVIN M. NEU, PATRICK
J. SCANNON, JOHN VARIAN, TIMOTHY P. WALBERT, PAUL D. RUBIN AND
JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI and Nominal Defendant XOMA CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-05236-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Markette filed a securities class action lawsuit against XOMA,
Varian, and Rubin relating to XOMA's EYEGUARD-B study in the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California, Markette v. XOMA
Corp. on July 24, 2015 ("Securities Action").  Fieser filed the
related shareholder derivative action, Fieser v. W. Denman Van
Ness on Nov. 16, 2015 ("Fieser Derivative Action"), naming the
Individual Defendants, and XOMA as Nominal Defendant.  Plaintiff
Csoka filed a related shareholder derivative action in the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California, Csoka v. John
Varian, et. al. on Nov. 25, 2015 ("Csoka Derivative Action").

As of April 25, 2016, both the Fieser Derivative Action and the
Csoka Derivative Action are before Hon. Jon S. Tigar.  On May 6,
2016, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the Fieser
Derivative Action, which stated they agree that the ruling on any
anticipated motions to dismiss in the Securities Action may help
inform the manner in which the Derivative Action proceeds.

On May 9, 2016, the Court stayed the Fieser Derivative Action
pending future developments in the Securities Action.  On May 19,
2016, the Court stayed the Csoka Derivative Action pending future
developments in the Securities Action.

On Aug. 19, 2016, the Court ordered the Fieser and Csoka
Derivative Actions related.  On Sept. 2, 2016, the Defendants
filed a motion dismiss the Securities Action.  On Oct. 7, 2016,
Plaintiff Markette filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.  On Oct. 21, 2016, the Defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 14, 2016, the Court in the Securities Action took the
pending motion to dismiss filings under submission.  On May 26,
2017, the Court in the Securities Action ordered the parties in
that action to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing in light
of the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in City of Dearborn Heights
Act 345 Police & Retirement Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc.

On June 9, 2017, both parties in the Securities Action filed
supplemental briefing in support of their respective motion to
dismiss filings.  On Sept. 28, 2017, the Court in the Securities
Action granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint without prejudice and entered an order
requiring the Plaintiff to file and serve an amended class action
complaint by Oct. 26, 2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Court in the Securities Action granted the
parties' Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), in which Plaintiff
Markette voluntarily dismissed the Securities Action with
prejudice as to his individual claims, and without prejudice as
to the unnamed class members.

The Parties have met and conferred in good faith, and Plaintiff
Fieser has agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  They agree that each party will bear its own
fees and costs related to the action.  Given this stipulation of
dismissal, the Parties agree that the order regarding ADR issued
on Nov. 27, 2017 is moot.

Judge Tigar granted the Parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CcHCYV from Leagle.com.

Deborah A. Fieser, derivatively on behalf of Xoma Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by James Robert Noblin, Green & Noblin,
P.C..

Deborah A. Fieser, derivatively on behalf of Xoma Corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green -- rsg@classcounsel.com
-- Green & Noblin, P.C..

W. Denman Van Ness, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria -- santamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison
Main -- amain@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette --
bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

William K. Bowes, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jessica
Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley
LLP.

Peter Barton Hutt, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Joseph M. Limber, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Kelvin M. Neu, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Patrick J. Scannon, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

John Varian, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Timothy P. Walbert, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Paul D. Rubin, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley LLP, Brett Hom
De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Jack L. Wyszomierski, Defendant, represented by Jessica
Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main, Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley
LLP.

Xoma Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Defendant, rrepresented by
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Amanda Alison Main,
Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer,
Cooley LLP.


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Resulted from Single Occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned United Conveyor Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Allstate Insurance Company, As Successor
In Interest To Northbrook Insurance Company, Northbrook Excess
And Surplus Insurance Company, And Northbrook Property And
Casualty Insurance Company; The Central National Insurance
Company Of Omaha; Columbia Casualty Company; Federal Insurance
Company; Tig Insurance Company, Formerly Known As International
Insurance Company; National Surety Corporation; And St. Paul
Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendants, (The Travelers
Indemnity Company; Travelers Casualty and Surety Company,
Formerly Known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company,
Defendants-Appellees), No. 1-16-2314, (Ill. 1st App. Ct.), the
insured, Plaintiff United Conveyor Corporation appeals the trial
court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Insurers-
Defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company (Travelers), claiming the trial court erred in
finding that United Conveyor's asbestos related losses resulted
from the single occurrence of continuous manufacturing and
selling ash-handling conveyor systems containing asbestos parts.
The insurance policies carried a higher aggregate limit than the
per-occurrence limit.

From 1952 to 1977, Travelers issued United Conveyor several
primary-level comprehensive general liability and umbrella
liability policies. Travelers issued 22 policies from December 3,
1952, to December 31, 1974, which had aggregate limits that were
higher than the per-occurrence limits. In these policies, the
term "occurrence" was consistently defined as "an accident,
including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which
results in bodily injury." The number of occurrences determined
whether the policies' per-occurrence limits or higher aggregate
limits applied.

Beginning in 1983, United Conveyor was named as a defendant in
thousands of lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions by
individuals claiming to have sustained bodily injury allegedly
from inhaling asbestos fibers from asbestos containing products
in United Conveyor's conveyor systems while installing,
maintaining, or repairing the systems. Travelers defended United
Conveyor against the suits under a full reservation of rights. In
particular, Travelers reserved the right to enforce the policies'
applicable "limits of liability."

On January 21, 2009, United Conveyor received a letter from
Travelers, stating the insurer's position that "all of the
primary policies issued by Travelers to United Conveyor have been
exhausted," which United Conveyor interpreted to mean that the
policies' per-occurrence, and not the aggregate, limits applied.
The record contains no contemporaneous writings reflecting United
Conveyor's disagreement with this position or its belief that,
until 2009, Travelers treated the design and installation of each
conveyor system as a separate occurrence.

More than three years later, on August 8, 2012, United Conveyor
filed a complaint, seeking a declaration that the asbestos claims
constituted multiple occurrences, triggering the policies' higher
aggregate limits and not the per-occurrence limits. United
Conveyor's complaint also included a breach of contract count,
asserting that Travelers' treatment of the asbestos losses as a
single occurrence breached the policies' terms and conditions.

On appeal, United Conveyor claims that the asbestos losses should
have been characterized as multiple occurrences because the
asbestos exposure resulted from the separate installation and
maintenance of the custom-designed conveyor systems. United
asserts that the asbestos claims did not relate to the continuous
or repeated exposure to asbestos arising out of a single
occurrence under the policy, but from separate occurrences
relating to each conveyor system's installation and maintenance.

The Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District affirms
the trial court's summary judgment rulings finding that the
asbestos claims resulted from a single occurrence or the higher
aggregate limits. Contrary to United Conveyor's position, the
First District finds that the cause of its loss was not
attributable to the installation and maintenance by United
Conveyor's customers of each conveyor system that contained
asbestos products -- but it is United Conveyor's manufacturing
activities that give rise to United Conveyor's liability. The
single, unitary cause of claims against United Conveyor is the
fact that it incorporated asbestos-containing components or
products into each of its systems designed for high-heat
operations. As a consequence, the per-occurrence limit applied.

United Conveyor also claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying its motion for leave to amend its complaint
to include a count asserting that Travelers waived and was
estopped from advocating its position that the losses constituted
a single-occurrence based on loss run reports Travelers sent to
United Conveyor, reservation of rights letters, and internal
Traveler's e-mails.

United Conveyor asserts that until 2009, Travelers shared United
Conveyor's view that the asbestos losses arose from multiple
occurrences subject to the higher aggregate limit. United
Conveyor further asserts that Travelers failed to effectively
reserve its rights regarding the number of occurrences after it
began defending United in the 1980s.

The First District affirms the trial court's ruling denying
United Conveyor's motion for leave to amend, finding that United
Conveyor's motion was not timely filed and that United Conveyor
had prior opportunities to amend its complaint before the trial
court entered its summary judgment rulings.  The First District
finds that United Conveyor sought to amend its complaint only on
February 16, 2016, which is 22 days after the trial court entered
its summary judgment ruling and after litigation proceeded for
more than three years after it filed its complaint on August 8,
2012.

Likewise, the First District finds nothing in the record which
reveals that United Conveyor relied on the discovery of any new
facts to support its untimely request to amend. To the extent
that United Conveyor claims it relied on additional information
disclosed in discovery, such as internal Travelers e-mails, the
First District finds no justification for its delay in asserting
these claims until after it had lost on summary judgment.

Indeed, in its own summary judgment motion, United Conveyor
argued that "in 2009, Travelers advised United Conveyor for the
first time that all its primary-level policies had been
exhausted, a position apparently based on the incorrect premise
that the Asbestos Claims constitute a single 'occurrence.'"
United Conveyor further contended that "Travelers is estopped
and/or has waived any right to take a single occurrence position
now, having undertaken and handled United's defense while
treating the Asbestos Claims as separate occurrences for
decades."

Thus, the First District concludes that United Conveyor was in
possession of all the facts it claims support its waiver and
estoppels claims well in advance of the trial court's ruling on
the cross-motions for summary judgment, and despite sufficient
knowledge of relevant facts and an adequate opportunity to do so,
United Conveyor did not seek leave to amend its complaint until
after the trial court granted summary judgment in Travelers'
favor.

Moreover, the First District maintains that United Conveyor's
amended complaint was not seeking to cure a defect in the
complaint, but to add a new cause of action after the entry of
summary judgment in Travelers' favor. United Conveyor's proposed
amended complaint alleged that Travelers waived and was estopped
from asserting its position that the losses incurred by United
were not separate occurrences, but a single occurrence.

Consequently, United Conveyor's amended complaint would not cure
a defect in the original complaint, but instead would add the new
waiver and estoppel count, as well as new allegations that
Travelers inadequately reserved its rights on the number of
occurrences, Travelers would have been prejudiced by having to
defend against an entirely different claim after summary judgment
had been entered in its favor more than three years after United
Conveyor filed its complaint. Thus, the Court finds United
Conveyor's postjudgment request to amend its complaint as an
improper attempt to circumvent the unfavorable summary judgment
rulings.

Moreover, the First District vacates the January 20, 2017 order
allowing the record and the briefs in this case to be filed under
seal. United Conveyor represents that in the trial court, the
parties entered into an agreed protective order, which the trial
court approved. But instead of selectively designating truly
confidential material pursuant to that order, the parties,
evidently by agreement, designated virtually everything produced
in discovery, entire deposition transcripts, and their briefs on
summary judgment as confidential. However, the First District
finds no reason why this particular case warrants the
extraordinary step of maintaining the entire record on appeal and
the briefs under seal.

Since 1983, United Conveyor has been a defendant in, by its own
count, thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits filed across the
country. No doubt, there has been extensive discovery conducted
by the plaintiffs in those lawsuits regarding the ash-conveyor
systems designed by United Conveyor, including what asbestos-
containing components were furnished as part of those systems.

Despite the fact that United Conveyor ceased using asbestos-
containing parts and materials in its systems in 1984, it
contends that the public disclosure of the design of those
systems could cause it competitive harm. United Conveyor also
seeks to maintain the secrecy of the record and briefs on the
ground that they disclose privileged communications between
defense counsel and United Conveyor in the underlying cases.

The First District finds that United Conveyor has failed to
identify a single communication relevant to the issues pending
before the Court. Instead, the First District finds this
wholesale effort to keep vast amounts of information out of the
public record as unwarranted. The First District has cautioned
trial courts that placing essentially an entire court file under
seal is warranted only in the most compelling circumstances. The
First District points out that judicial records and documents are
presumptively open to the public. Public access to court files is
essential to the public's right to monitor the functioning of the
court system to ensure quality, honesty, and respect for the
legal system.

A full-text copy of the Justice Mason's Opinion dated December 5,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/j2a7rY from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Casey" Raised to Missouri Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In this workers compensation case captioned Accident Fund
Insurance Company; E.J. Cody Company, Inc., Respondents-
Appellants, V. Robert Casey, Employee/Dolores Murphy, Appellant-
Respondent, No. WD80470, Consolidated with Nos. WD80481, WD80525,
(Mo. W.D. Ct. App.), all parties appeal from the Labor and
Industrial Relations Commission's decision that Accident Fund
National Insurance Company ("Insurer") is liable for $521,545.44
in workers compensation benefits to Dolores Murphy based upon the
death of her husband, Robert Casey, from mesothelioma due to
toxic exposure to asbestos through his employment at E.J. Cody
Company, Inc. ("Employer").

In their appeals, both Insurer and Employer argue that the
Commission's application of Section 287.200.4 of the Revised
Statutes of Missouri 2016, to Murphy's claim violates the
Missouri Constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws.

Robert Casey worked for approximately 30 years as a tile
installer for various companies.  Casey began working part-time
for Employer in 1984.  Throughout Casey's career as a floor tile
installer, including during his employment with Employer, he was
repeatedly exposed to asbestos and its hazards because he
installed vinyl asbestos tile and used cutback, which is an
asbestos-containing adhesive used for installing vinyl asbestos
tile. Twenty-four years after he retired from Employer, Casey was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on November 5, 2014. Casey filed a
claim for workers' compensation benefits against Employer in
February 2015. Casey died while the claim was pending. Murphy
subsequently filed an amended claim listing herself as his
dependent and his eight children as his surviving children.

At the start of the hearing held before an Administrative Law
Judge, Murphy stipulated that she was seeking benefits solely
under the "new" statute, Section 287.200.4, which became
effective on January 1, 2014, and was not seeking any benefits
under the "old" law applicable to occupational diseases. Section
287.200.4 provides for compensation "for all claims filed on or
after January 1, 2014, for occupational diseases due to toxic
exposure which result in a permanent total disability or death."

The Employer and the Insurer challenge the constitutionality of
Section 287.200.4 as applied to an occupational disease claim
where the employee's last exposure to the hazard of the
occupational disease predates the statute's effective date of
January 1, 2014.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western District
determines that their constitutional challenge facially falls
within the Supreme Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, the
Missouri Supreme Court has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction in
all cases involving the validity of a... statute... of this
state." "If any point on appeal involves such question, the
entire case must be transferred to the Supreme Court."

The Court disagrees with Murphy's argument that the Employer and
the Insurer failed to preserve their constitutional challenge by
not raising it at the earliest opportunity -- which she asserts
was as an affirmative defense in their answers to her claim for
compensation. The Court points out that "an administrative
hearing commission is not empowered to determine the
constitutionality of statutes, a party is not required to raise
those issues at that level."

The Employer and the Insurer also assert that the application of
Section 287.200.4 impairs their substantive rights because, prior
to the statute's enactment, their liability was fixed as of the
date of Casey's last exposure to the hazard in 1990. In 1990,
mesothelioma was subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of
the Workers' Compensation Act. Section 287.200.4(3), however,
requires all employers to accept mesothelioma liability or risk
being subject to a civil suit without the exclusivity protection
the employer had at the time of the last exposure.

The Employer and the Insurer argue that employers have a vested
right to be free from civil liability based on the insurance they
purchased to cover liability as it existed at the date of last
exposure, and that immunity cannot be retroactively taken away on
the condition that they accept additional liability.

The Employer and the Insurer also argue that the application of
Section 287.200.4 imposes new obligations on them not only by
dramatically increasing the amount of compensation for which they
are liable but also by extending their liability to Casey's
beneficiaries, even though the law as it existed at the time of
last exposure would have terminated such benefits upon Casey's
death.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the case be transferred to the
Missouri Supreme Court because the case raises a real and
substantial challenge to the validity of a state statute, and
thus, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court's exclusive
jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 3 of the Missouri
Constitution.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/JI3Wf6 from Leagle.com.

Scott W. Mach, R. Carl Mueller, Jr., Kansas City for Appellant-
Respondent.

John R. Fox, Kansas City; Alexander C. Barrett, Jefferson City
and Jeffery T. McPherson, Clayton for Respondent-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms Judgment vs. John Crane
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Crane, Inc., and Brand Insulations, Inc., appeal from the
trial court's July 27, 2016 Order denying Post-Trial Motions and
entering Judgment in favor of Appellees William and Jacqueline
Roverano.

The appealed case is William C. Roverano And Jacqueline Roverano,
H/W V. John Crane, Inc. And Brand Insulations, Inc. Appeal Of:
Brand Insulations, Inc. William C. Roverano V. John Crane, Inc.,
Appellant, Nos. 2837 EDA 2016, 2847 EDA 2016, (Pa. Super. Ct.).

Appellee William Roverano was employed at PECO from 1971 until
his retirement in 2001. As part of his employment, Mr. Roverano
was exposed to a variety of asbestos products over a ten-year
period from 1971 until 1981.

In November of 2013, Mr. Roverano was diagnosed with lung cancer
in both lungs. Despite extensive treatment, his prognosis is
poor. On March 10, 2014, Mr. Roverano filed a Complaint against
thirty named defendants, averring that exposure to asbestos
products attributable to those defendants caused his lung cancer.
In addition, Mrs. Roverano made a claim for loss of consortium.

At trial, the parties presented evidence that focused primarily
on Roverano's exposure to Appellants' products that contained
asbestos and whether such exposure caused Roverano's lung cancer.
The thrust of Appellants' defense was that it was Roverano's
history of smoking that caused his lung cancer and any exposure
to Appellants' products was insignificant and could not have
caused his lung cancer. In contrast, Appellees' experts opined
that it was both his smoking and the exposure to Appellants'
products that caused his lung cancer.

After deliberating, the jury found in favor of Mr. and Mrs.
Roverano and against the Appellants as well as six of the eight
other defendants. The jury awarded $5,189,265 to Mr. Roverano and
$1,250,000 to Mrs. Roverano.

Appellants argue that the trial court erred in defining "factual
cause" in its instructions to the jury and in response to a
written question from the jury. In particular, Appellants argue
that the "law requires a 'but for' causation standard for the
definition of factual [causation], which was an error of law that
controlled the outcome of the case."

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, concludes that the trial
court has properly rejected Appellant's request for a "but for
causation" jury charge. The Court points out that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly rejected such a standard
for causation and requires, when addressing a situation in which
a plaintiff is exposed to more than one asbestos containing
products, that the jury determine whether the plaintiff's
exposure to each defendant's product was "frequent, regular and
proximate" to determine whether such exposure was a substantial
factor in causing the plaintiff's injury.

Appellants further argue that the "trial court's instruction did
not provide a sufficient and correct legal basis to guide the
jury." The Court determines that the trial court "fully and
adequately conveyed the applicable law" by instructing the jury
that Mr. Roverano must establish that he was exposed to the
asbestos fibers that Appellants had manufactured, distributed or
supplied on a "regular, frequent and proximate basis" and such
exposure was a substantial cause of plaintiff's lung cancer.

Appellants also argue that the trial court erred in responding to
the jury's question regarding the definition of "factual" cause.
The Court finds that the trial court charged the jury correctly
by instructing the jury that factual cause is "legal cause,
sometime referred to as substantial factor."

Appellant Crane argues that a principal theory of Appellants'
defense "was that Mr. Roverano's lung cancer was not caused by
his exposure to asbestos at all; rather [the cancer,] along with
his emphysema and COPD, was caused by his extensive smoking
history." Appellant contends that by denying a specific question
on the Verdict Sheet reflecting this theory, the trial court
precluded Appellant Crane from presenting this theory to the
jury. Appellant Crane argues that the trial court should have
specifically included a question on the Verdict Sheet about
whether smoking caused Mr. Roverano's lung cancer.

The purpose of the Verdict Sheet is to provide a general
guidepost to the jury of the general issues the jury must decide.
It is not to reflect either party's specific theories. Therefore,
the Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Appellant's request to include a question
on the Verdict Sheet that reflected its theory of the case.

Appellant Crane also argues that the trial court erred by failing
to provide the jury a question on the Verdict Sheet asking the
jury whether Crane's asbestos products were "unreasonably
dangerous" and thus, defective.

The Court agrees that the trial court's conclusions that the
trial was primarily focused on exposure and causation. The Court
finds, however, that Appellant did not dispute that its product
contained asbestos. As the trial court noted, "neither defendant
disputed that their products contained asbestos without proper
warnings."

Therefore, the Court determines that the trial court properly
rejected Appellant Crane's request that the Verdict Sheet contain
a question about whether the asbestos was unreasonably dangerous
and limited the questions on the Verdict Sheet to whether
Appellee was exposed to the defendant's asbestos and whether that
exposure caused his lung cancer. The Court opines that adding a
question about defect when the parties did not present evidence
on the issue or argue about it in their opening or closing
statements would have confused the jury.

The Court disagrees with Appellant Crane's characterization of
the expert testimony of the Roveranos. A review of the entire
testimony of the Roverano experts demonstrates that Roveranos'
experts did not testify that it was a single exposure to the
Appellants' products that caused Mr. Roverano's lung cancer;
rather, that it was multiple exposures that were a substantial
factor in causing Roverano's lung cancer. Additionally, Appellant
Crane failed to point to testimony of any expert who based his
opinion on the premise of a single exposure.

Appellant Crane essentially argues that because the jury believed
the Roveranos' experts and not the Appellants' experts on the
question of general causation, the court erred in permitting the
experts to testify. However, the Court declines to disturb jury's
weight determination.

Georgia Pacific Cement and Hajoca Corporation were both included
on the Verdict Sheet, and the jury was specifically instructed to
determine whether either named defendant "manufactured,
distributed, or supplied" products which "were factual causes in
bringing about Plaintiff's lung cancer." After hearing the
evidence presented at trial, the jury found that Georgia Pacific
Cement and Hajoca Corporation were not liable for the harm to
Appellees. In light of the fact that the jury did not find that
Georgia Pacific Cement and Hajoca Corporation to be tortfeasors,
the Court finds that the trial court did not err in refusing to
mold the verdict to include them.

The Court agrees with the Appellants' contention that the trial
court erred as a matter of law by refusing to apply the Fair
Share Act to this case. They argue that the Roveranos' claim
falls within the ambit of the Act and that nothing in the plain
language of the Act supports the trial court's decision to exempt
asbestos litigation from the Act's requirements.

The Court concludes that liability in strict liability cases must
be allocated in the same way as in other tort cases, and not on a
per capita basis, and that the trial court erred in holding that
the jury could not apportion liability pursuant to the Fair Share
Act. The Court also agrees with Appellants that the jury on
remand must be permitted to consider evidence of any settlements
by the Roveranos with bankrupt entities in connection with the
apportionment of liability.

Accordingly, the Court reverses that portion dealing with the
Fair Share Act and remands the case for a new trial to apportion
the jury verdicts among the Appellants, the non-bankrupt settling
defendants

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 28, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/CZjhYZ from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Byer, Esq. -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris
LLP, for Appellant, Brand Insulations, Inc.

Andrew Ronald Sperl, Esq. -- ARSperl@duanemorris.com -- Duane
Morris LLP, for Appellant, Brand Insulations, Inc.

Alyson Walker Lotman, Esq. -- ALotman@duanemorris.com -- Duane
Morris LLP, for Appellant, Brand Insulations, Inc.

Theresa A. Langschultz, Esq. -- TLangschultz@duanemorris.com --
Duane Morris LLP, for Appellant, Brand Insulations, Inc.

Edward M. Nass, Esq. -- macancelliere@ncblawfirm.com -- Nass
Cancelliere Brenner, for Appellee, William Roverano and
Jacqueline Roverano.

William Rudolph Adams, Esq. -- wadams@dmclaw.com -- Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for Participant, John Crane, Inc.

Michael A. Pollard, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, for Participant, John
Crane, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Reverses Judgment vs. Bechtel
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District
reverses the final judgment finding Bechtel Corporation and
Bechtel Construction Company liable for Richard Batchelor's
mesothelioma after a jury trial in favor of Richard and Regina
Batchelor.

Richard Batchelor was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma in
2015. The major cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. In
the past, Mr. Batchelor had served on nuclear submarines in the
Navy where he was trained as an electrical technician to maintain
gauges used to monitor nuclear power plants. He then joined FPL
where he worked as an electrical technician at the Turkey Point
power plant from 1974 to 1980 and then at another one of its
power plants for two years, until he was promoted to perform
budgeting work within an office.

At trial, Mr. Batchelor testified that he was employed by FPL as
an electronic technician responsible for repairing and
maintaining the gauges and equipment at the Turkey Point power
plant. The plant has a nuclear side and a fossil fuel side, each
consisting of two units. Insulation covered the various pipes,
wires, and equipment at the plant. Some of the insulation
contained asbestos. When Mr. Batchelor was required to work on
equipment covered with insulation, he did not remove the
insulation himself. Instead, his supervisor called in workers who
specialized in removing insulation. FPL itself removed insulation
for small jobs, and contractors removed insulation for large
jobs.

Batchelor's medical causation testimony was provided by Dr.
Murray Finkelstein. Dr. Finkelstein never examined Batchelor and
never visited Turkey Point. He based his testimony on a review of
Batchelor's deposition and published medical studies. Dr.
Finkelstein testified that Mr. Batchelor's mesothelioma was
caused by exposure to asbestos in three situations: (1) while
Batchelor was repairing and sanding brakes; (2) when Batchelor
sanded drywall during a year-long home improvement project; and
(3) at Turkey Point where Batchelor was nearby when insulation at
Turkey Point was removed.

Bechtel built Turkey Point and was retained under contract to
provide ongoing maintenance services -- FPL would issue work
orders at its discretion to Bechtel and Bechtel would do the work
requested on a cost-plus basis. FPL would decide whether FPL or
Bechtel would provide needed supplies, equipment, and ancillary
services. FPL periodically took each of the four units offline
for repair and maintenance. During these shutdowns, FPL tasked
(a) Bechtel with performing major overhauls on the units, (b)
Foster Wheeler with performing maintenance on the unit's giant
boilers, which were lined with insulation, and (c) its own
employees, including Batchelor, to perform certain maintenance on
the units. Even when contractors were present, which was most of
the time, Batchelor received work instructions only from FPL.

The case proceeded to a jury trial against Bechtel and one other
defendant, Foster Wheeler, another maintenance contractor at
Turkey Point. The jury was instructed: "On Plaintiff's claim,
there is a preliminary issue for you to decide: Whether at the
time and place of the incident in this case, Mr. Batchelor was
invited on the premises in the possession or control of Bechtel."
Consequently, the jury entered a verdict for Mr. Batchelor in the
amount of $15,381,724.12 and for his wife in the amount of $6
million. It attributed the fault as follows: Foster Wheeler 5%,
FPL 35%, and Bechtel 60%.

Following the verdict, Bechtel moved for directed verdict, entry
of judgment as a matter of law, and new trial, which the trial
court denied as sanction for Bechtel's failure to attempt to
locate retired employees by mailing postcards. Batchelor claims
that Bechtel's failure to attempt to locate retired employees who
had worked at Turkey Point during the relevant time period --
well over thirty years ago -- justified the trial court's adverse
inference.

On appeal, Bechtel contends that this court should reverse and
remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Bechtel as
a matter of law, based upon insufficient evidence to establish
that Bechtel was in possession or control of FPL's premises
during the relevant time period. Alternatively, Bechtel contends,
it is entitled to a new trial because the trial court abused its
discretion in giving an adverse inference instruction to the
jury.

The Court agrees with Bechtel's position that, at the very least,
its motion for new trial should have been granted because the
adverse inference instruction that the judge gave the jury
constituted reversible error. The Court explains that while a
party's duty under Rule 1.310(b)(6) includes some reasonable
efforts to contact retired employees if current employees cannot
provide the information requested, however, absent a specific
court order to do so, it should not be interpreted that in a way
that a party's responsibilities to prepare a representative to
extend so far -- particularly here, where the deposition is
noticed to take place only a few weeks before trial -- when there
is reduced time for such a large effort.

The Court concludes that in the absence of an order compelling
Bechtel to undertake such an extraordinary effort on the eve of
trial which involved so little promise of results, the trial
court erred in imposing the sanction of an adverse inference jury
instruction.

The Court also agrees with Bechtel that its motion for a directed
verdict should have been granted because Batchelor failed to
provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the "control" element of
the premises liability claim. The Court finds that there was not
enough evidence to allow this question to go to the jury.

One of the unusual aspects of this case is Batchelor's theory of
liability. Batchelor did not sue Bechtel under a products
liability theory for manufacturing products containing asbestos.
Nor did Batchelor sue Bechtel on the theory that Bechtel removed
asbestos in a manner that negligently exposed Batchelor to a
dangerous level of asbestos. Instead, Batchelor sued Bechtel on
the theory of premises liability.

The Court points out that "Premises liability is not predicated
on ownership of the property;" instead, it is predicated on the
"duty to protect others from injury resulting from a dangerous
condition on the premises rests on the right to control access to
the property." In order to prove his theory, Batchelor was
required to prove that Bechtel controlled the premises.

However, as Batchelor admitted in his Answer Brief, his premises
liability case was that Bechtel controlled the premises to the
extent that it was liable for its failure to warn Batchelor, an
FPL employee, of the dangers of asbestos dust created "by others
in areas of the Turkey Point power plant that were being
controlled by Bechtel." The Court finds that record in this case
fails to include evidence sufficient to make a finding that
Bechtel controlled all or part of the premises where Batchelor
was exposed to asbestos.

The Court acknowledges that certainly this lack of evidence may
well be due to the simple passage of over thirty years between
the trial and the occurrence of the events at issue. But the lack
of evidence may also be due to the fact that FPL never permitted
a third party to take control and possession of all or part of
this nuclear facility. In any event, the Court maintains that
Bechtel's motion for directed verdict should have been granted
because of the lack of evidence.

The appealed case is Bechtel Corporation, et al., Appellants, v.
Richard Batchelor, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D16-2624, (Fla.
3d Dist. Ct. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 27, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/RI16tP from Leagle.com.

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., and Chris W. Altenbernd ,
Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq. -- swalbolt@carltonfields.com -- and
Matthew J. Conigliaro, Esq. -- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com --
for appellants.

The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., and Juan P. Bauta, II, Paulo R. Lima,
and Gabriel S. Saade, for appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of 2 MARDOC Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacates the order
dismissing Joseph E. Blue's and George A. Perdreauville's cases
for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remands the appealed case
IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) Joseph E.
Blue; George A. Perdreauville, Appellants, No. 16-4148, (3rd
Cir.) for further proceedings.

Joining several thousand other seamen, Appellants Perdreauville
and Blue commenced litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against various shipowner Defendants in
the late 1980s. Appellants alleged that they had suffered damages
after being exposed to asbestos onboard the Defendants' vessels.
Eventually, the cases were consolidated in the Northern District
of Ohio's Maritime Docket ("MARDOC") before Judge Thomas Lambros.
These various MARDOC Plaintiffs, including Perdreauville and
Blue, were represented by one firm -- the Jaques Admiralty Law
Firm. The vast majority of the MARDOC Defendants, including
Appellees Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., f/k/a Mississippi Shipping
Co., Inc., and Farrell Lines Incorporated (together, the
"Shipowner Appellees"), were represented by the firm Thompson,
Hine, & Flory LLP.

In 1989, Thompson, Hine, & Flory LLP moved on behalf of the
Shipowner Appellees in the Perdreauville case (though not in the
Blue case) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge
Lambros thereafter held two hearings on the issue and ruled that
the Northern District of Ohio did not have personal jurisdiction
over a significant number of the Defendants, including Delta.
Rather than dismissing the cases outright, however, Judge Lambros
afforded time so that Plaintiffs could indicate "where each case
should be transferred and the Defendants could decide if they
preferred to remain in the Northern District of Ohio by waiving
their personal jurisdiction defenses."

In the months that followed, Judge Lambros issued two orders:
MARDOC Order 40 and MARDOC Order 41. The former was issued on
November 22, 1989, and directed the Plaintiffs to "report the
choice of forum" for each case slated for transfer. It further
stated that an appropriate transfer order would be issued in
December 1989 and that "parties who, upon reconsideration of
their motions to dismiss or transfer, wished to remain in this
jurisdiction, need only file answers to the complaints" in order
to remain in the Northern District of Ohio.

The latter order, MARDOC Order 41, was filed about a month later
and again recognized "the insufficiency of minimal state contacts
to invoke in personam jurisdiction" over a number of Defendants
in Ohio. On that basis, MARDOC Order 41 authorized the transfer
of the cases involving those Defendants to jurisdictions which,
according to the Plaintiffs, had "sufficient contact [with the
Defendants] to sustain... in personam jurisdiction... Included
among the group of cases to be transferred were those filed by
the Appellants.

The Shipowner Appellees, however, chose neither to submit to
transfer nor to waive their personal jurisdiction defense.
Instead, Thompson, Hine, & Flory LLP filed on behalf of its
clients -- including the Shipowner Appellees -- Master Answer No.
1, averring as an affirmative defense that the Northern District
of Ohio "lacked personal jurisdiction over [each] defendant due
to insufficient contacts of [the] defendant with" the forum
state. The Shipowner Appellees subsequently adopted Master Answer
No. 1 as to both Perdreauville and Blue.

Eventually, in 1991, the Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") was created in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
Shipowner Appellees opposed the transfer of the MARDOC cases to
the Asbestos MDL and urged the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate the cases in the Northern
District of Ohio. In a filing with the JPML, counsel requested on
behalf of the Shipowner Appellees, "if transfer is to take
place... that it be to the Northern District of Ohio" because
"procedures already are in place for the pretrial management of
seamen's asbestos cases, and this is the district in which the
largest number of seamen's cases is pending." Notwithstanding the
Shipowner Appellees' objection, the MARDOC cases were transferred
to the Asbestos MDL, where they sat dormant until 2011 when Judge
Robreno reactivated them.

Throughout 2012 to 2014, the Shipowner Appellees filed motions to
dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction in the
Appellants' cases. In Perdreauville's case, Judge Robreno granted
the Shipowner Appellees' motion and dismissed the case. On
October 10, 2014, Judge Robreno dismissed Blue's case as well,
citing both Jacobs and Bartel v. Various Defendants, 965
F.Supp.2d 612 (E.D. Pa. 2013) for his reasoning and conclusions.
In Jacobs and Bartel, Judge Robreno ruled that the Defendants
"had preserved their personal jurisdiction defenses because they
had raised the issue throughout the litigation and there was no
evidence to show that they had waived their defenses" as to the
relevant Plaintiffs. Moreover, Judge Robreno interpreted the
Defendants' "opposition to the consolidation of the MARDOC cases
in the Asbestos MDL simply as resistance to the Asbestos MDL, not
as affirmative consent to litigate in Ohio."

Following the dismissal of their cases, Perdreauville and Blue
filed this timely joint appeal challenging Judge Robreno's
decision to grant the Shipowner Appellees' motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing, inter alia, that the
Appellees had waived their personal jurisdiction defenses.

The Third Circuit has addressed precisely the same issue in a
2016 decision involving three different MDL Plaintiffs, In re:
Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig., 661 F. App'x 173 (3d Cir. 2016) (the
"Braun" Opinion). The Third Circuit explains that in Braun, three
Plaintiffs appealed Judge Robreno's dismissal of their claims for
lack of personal jurisdiction. In Braun, the Third Circuit
reversed and remanded, finding that the Defendants had waived
their personal jurisdiction defenses at the January 8, 1991,
hearing before Chief Judge Lambros. The Third Circuit explained
that waiver occurred when counsel for the Braun Defendants
acknowledged that they had consented to jurisdiction in the
Northern District of Ohio, they did so in reference to the cases
that were at risk of being transferred by Chief Judge Lambros to
Michigan. The Third Circuit concluded, therefore, that counsel's
consent to proceed with litigation in Ohio amounted to "a clear
waiver of the personal jurisdiction defense..."

The Third Circuit also opined in Braun that Judge Robreno's
interpretation of the hearing transcript -- i.e., his assessment
that defense counsel's reference to "these cases" was limited to
the sixteen cases set for trial in the Northern District of Ohio
-- was belied by the record. In fact, Chief Judge Lambros never
suggested that the remaining sixteen cases from the first cluster
were at risk of being transferred to Michigan; to the contrary,
it was decided on the record that all sixteen cases would be
tried to the same Ohio jury that heard the first four cases from
that cluster.

Moreover, the Third Circuit stated in Braun that the Defendants'
post-transfer filings further confirmed that they had waived
their personal jurisdiction defenses because, in those filings,
they specifically requested that the cases be transferred from
the Eastern District of Michigan and the JPML to Ohio. In sum,
the Third Circuit concluded in Braun that Judge Robreno's
decision was "a further stretch than what... the facts support,"
namely: that the shipowner Defendants "waived their personal
jurisdiction defenses and wished to proceed to trial in the
Northern District of Ohio."

Upon a review of Braun, the Third Circuit finds that its
reasoning and conclusion bear upon the Appellants' case as well.
For one, the claims brought by Appellants Perdreauville and Blue
-- like those filed by the Braun Plaintiffs -- were among those
at risk of being transferred from Ohio to Michigan in January
1991. The Shipowner Appellees, in turn, were represented by the
same Thompson, Hine, & Flory LLP attorney who consented at the
January 8, 1991, hearing to jurisdiction in the Northern District
of Ohio. This acknowledgement was a clear waiver of the Shipowner
Appellees' lack of personal jurisdiction defenses. Taken
together, these facts establish that the Shipowner Appellees here
-- like those in Braun -- indeed waived their lack of personal
jurisdiction defenses with regard to the Appellants' cases.

Moreover, the Third Circuit determines that the Shipowner
Appellees' post-transfer filings confirm that they, like their
counterparts in Braun, equally waived their personal jurisdiction
defenses with respect to the Appellants. As a case in point, the
Shipowner Appellees objected to OAL Order 125 -- which
transferred 44 cases, including the Appellants', to the Eastern
District of Michigan -- by filing a motion to vacate OAL Order
125 and have the cases "retained for pretrial management and
trial in Cleveland." The Third Circuit concludes that the
Shipowner Appellees waived their personal jurisdiction defenses
through these filings.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion dated December
28, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/o6POIn from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Metropolitan Life Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina granted Joint Motion filed in
the case Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Executor of the Estate of Percy
Ray Cox, Plaintiff, v. Agco Corporation, et al, Defendants, Civil
Action Case No. 4:16-cv-00084-D, (E.D. N.C.), and dismissed the
claims of the Plaintiff, Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Executor of the
Estate of Percy Ray Cox, Deceased, against Defendant Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company with prejudice. To the extent that any
cross-claims by or against Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company exist, those cross-claims are also dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 27, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/RAimfG from Leagle.com.

Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Executor of the Estate of Percy Ray Cox,
Dec., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Esq. --
bbraly@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP, Sabrina G. Stone,
Esq. -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP & Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black Law.

AGCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly Street Brown,
Young, Moore & Henderson, P.A. & Joseph W. Williford, Young,
Moore & Henderson, P.A.

Arvinmeritor, successor in interest to Rockwell International
Automotive Products & Maremont Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Carter T. Lambeth, Carter T. Lambeth Attorney,
P.C. & William P. Early, Pierce Herns Sloan and Wilson LLC.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., successor in interest to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy, Hedrick,
Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP & Jon S. Player, Hedrick,
Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A. & William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin Elaine Shofner,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, Teresa Elizabeth Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Douglas Andrew Rubel,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Deere & Company, Inc., doing business as John Deere, Defendant,
represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough, LLP.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Barrett Equipment Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Beaver, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Peter A. Santos, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP,
Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP & Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., individually and as successor in
interest to the Bendix Corporation formerly known as
AlliedSignal, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr.,
Davis & Hamrick, LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, formerly known as Westvaco, Defendant,
represented by Carter T. Lambeth, Carter T. Lambeth Attorney,
P.C. & Louis P. Herns, Pierce Herns Sloan and Wilson LLC.

Navistar, Inc., successor in interest to International Harvester
Company formerly known as International Truck and Engine
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert O. Meriwether,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation & Standard Motor Products, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Robert David Proffitt, Proffitt & Cox,
LLP & Ronald Brian Cox, Proffitt & Cox, LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, successor in interest to Abex Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch &
Seekings.

SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor in interest to
Bear Automotive Service Equipment Company, Defendant, represented
by Gary L. Beaver, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant,
represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick
James Cleary, Bowman and Brooke, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $602MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$602.0 million for asbestos product
liability matters at September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual
property, and competitive claims), environmental matters, product
liability matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management
matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers'
compensation claims).  Additionally, we may become subject to
other claims of which we are currently unaware, which may be
significant, or the claims of which we are aware may result in
our incurring significantly greater loss than we anticipate.
While we (and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto,
product, general liability, environmental, and directors' and
officers' liability insurance and have acquired rights under
similar policies in connection with acquisitions that we believe
cover a significant portion of these claims, this insurance may
be insufficient or unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer
insolvency) to protect us against potential loss exposures.
Also, while we believe we are entitled to indemnification from
third parties for some of these claims, these rights may be
insufficient or unavailable to protect us against potential loss
exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled
US$646.7 million (including US$602.0 million for asbestos product
liability matters) and US$653.5 million (including US$605.6
million for asbestos product liability matters) at September 30,
2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.  Of these amounts,
US$613.8 million and US$621.0 million are included in "Other
long-term liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance
sheets at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively,
with the remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The
liabilities we record for these claims are based on a number of
assumptions, including historical claims and payment experience
and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the
future period during which additional claims are reasonably
foreseeable.  While we base our assumptions on facts currently
known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments and
uncertainties.  As a result, our current assumptions for
estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may
be required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which
could result in charges to earnings.  These variances relative to
current expectations could have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations.

"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate.  It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants.  We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims
have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance
arrangements.  During the three months ended September 30, 2017
and October 1, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related matters,
net of insurance recoveries, were US$4.7 million and US$0.0,
respectively.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2017,
our insurance recoveries for asbestos-related matters, net of
payments, were US$3.1 million, which included cash proceeds
received during the first quarter of 2017 of US$8.5 million
related to a settlement reached with an insurance carrier.
During the nine months ended October 1, 2016, our payments for
asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$3.0 million.  A significant increase in claims, costs and/or
issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or
insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on
our share of future payments related to these matters, and, as
such, have a material impact on our financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$554.0 million and US$564.4 million at September 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, respectively, and included in "Other assets"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/P3swbx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 22 Cases at Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 22 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages
for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 22 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 50 asbestos
cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against
AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our
acquisition of AMCOL.  Two new asbestos cases were filed in the
third quarter of 2017 and one additional asbestos case was filed
subsequent to the close of the quarter.  No asbestos or silica
cases were dismissed during the quarter.  Most of these claims do
not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the
magnitude of such liability, if any.  Additional claims of this
nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries.  At
this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's
liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will
not have a material effect on its financial position or results
of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of
amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court
pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the
claimed damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal
defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant.  The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.  The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the
initial public offering.  Of the 22 pending asbestos cases, 15 of
the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or
in part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of
products that occurred either entirely before the initial public
offering, or both before and after the initial public offering.
In the six remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have not
alleged dates of exposure.  The remaining case is an AMCOL case,
which makes no allegation with respect to periods of exposure.
Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to
plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not
expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4VRo8j


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 334 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 334 asbestos-related cases
pending as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in
which we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim
for damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims
for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim
for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an
equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to
allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in our favor.
We continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims.  Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely
that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims
against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.  However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties.  These uncertainties
include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims
may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies
currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from
case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease each
claimant alleged to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment
of legislation affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jl2uqP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $324MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") estimates its future
obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims,
including asbestos claims, at US$324 million, 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.

BNSF states, "The Company is party to a number of personal injury
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed
to asbestos.  The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF employees
was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam
locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950
and 1967.  However, other types of exposures, including exposure
from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by
1985.

"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter.  BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the
number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim.
Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim
are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"During the third quarters of 2017 and 2016, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used
by BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable.  In the third quarter of 2017, management recorded a
decrease to the liability of US$29 million.  No adjustment was
recorded in the third quarter of 2016.  The Company plans to
update its study again in the third quarter of 2018.

"Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.

"Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees
and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that
unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the
year 2050.  The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated
filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite
exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to
1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and
about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including
age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF
specific data that was the basis for the study.  BNSF projects
that approximately 65, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted
asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25
years, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/a33QJs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4BB Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has US$1,398 million asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that
UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable
to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact
resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively
defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and
future claims.

"Since 2003, the Corporation has engaged Ankura Consulting Group,
LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review the
Corporation's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution
activity in order to assist UCC management in estimating the
Corporation's asbestos-related liability.  Each year, Ankura has
reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the
appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.
Historically, every other year beginning in October, Ankura has
completed a full review and formal update to the most recent
Ankura study.

"Based on the December 2016 Ankura study and the Corporation's
own review of the data, and taking into account the change in
accounting policy that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2016,
the Corporation's total asbestos-related liability through the
terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-related defense and
processing costs, was US$1,490 million at December 31, 2016, and
was included in "Asbestos-related liabilities - current" and
"Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent" in the consolidated
balance sheets.

"Each quarter, the Corporation reviews claims filed, settled and
dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by
disease category.  The Corporation also considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of
pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other
asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing
costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative
developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective
effects on expected future resolution costs.  UCC management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the most recent
Ankura study and determines whether a change in the estimate is
warranted.  Based on the Corporation's review of 2017 activity,
it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required
at September 30, 2017.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,398
million at September 30, 2017, and approximately 15 percent of
the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 85 percent related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/l6EUi4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 15,179 PI Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 15,179 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that
UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable
to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact
resulted from exposure to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons
and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement
experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged
against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its
determination of any potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/l6EUi4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metlife Unit Had 2,742 New Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 2,742 new asbestos-related claims during
the nine months ended September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or
selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC
issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies
in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or
selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and
factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including
seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and
settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under
appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of
certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty
to the plaintiffs-- it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute, or sell
the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit
has expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while
other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no
assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future.  While most cases brought to date have settled,
MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims
based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received
approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016.  During the
nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received
approximately 2,742 and 3,267 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively.  The number of asbestos cases that may be brought,
the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and
the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are
uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure
is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions
impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.
The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult
to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in
pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims
filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in
the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact
of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow
plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to
asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were
well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse
verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos
exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years
further in the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a
future point after which losses cease to be probable and
reasonably estimable.  It is reasonably possible that the
Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially
greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that
future charges to income may be necessary.  While the potential
future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or
annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information
currently known by management, management does not believe any
such charges are likely to have a material effect on the
Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the
legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.
Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the
adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos
litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the
cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis.  These variables include bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and
judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving
serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and
other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are
pending.  Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure
from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis
for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qQAka4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,603 Pending Claims at Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 17,603 unresolved claims related to
asbestos matters as of September 29, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2017.

The Company also disclosed that in the nine months ended
September 29, 2017, there were 3,450 claims filed and 6,414
claims resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ODzI4b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.6MM Accrued Liability at Sept. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos liability of
US$53,637,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$308,995,000
as of September 29, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2017.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable
and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that
the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal
costs related to defending themselves against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers,
which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Following a Delaware Supreme Court ruling on
September 12, 2016, the Company received a total of US$30.5
million of previously unreimbursed costs funded by the Company in
defense and settlement of asbestos claims from insurance
companies during the nine months ended September 29, 2017.
Certain matters, including potential interest which could be
awarded to a specific subsidiary, are subject to further rulings
from the Delaware courts.  While the outcome is uncertain, none
of these matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of
the Company.

"Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions.  However, projecting future events, such
as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of
resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers,
the method in which losses will be allocated to the various
insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ODzI4b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 32,760 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had around 32,760 asbestos-related claims pending
as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of
exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse,
a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse
was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.  The
Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants
in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of asbestos
lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.  Claims against the
Company in which a product has been identified principally relate
to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating
material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and
marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal
or no impairment.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company had pending approximately
32,760 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 33,610 as
of December 31, 2016 and 34,400 as of September 30, 2016.  During
the third quarter of 2017, the Company received approximately 720
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 1,200 claims.  The Company reports claims as closed
when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by
a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the
claimants on the material terms of a settlement.  Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the
basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the
claims and other factors.

"In 2016, the Company's costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims after insurance and taxes were approximately
US$48 million.  In 2015, as the result of an insurance
settlement, insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's after tax
costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims by
approximately US$5 million.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities.  This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings,
costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims.
While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has
remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to
predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims
and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the
Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cOfe8q


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Review Asbestos Removal Initiatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Killman of The Daily Telegraph reported that three weeks
after dumping a motion to explore asbestos removal initiatives,
Central Coast Council has changed its tune.

At a meeting, councillors voted to look at initiatives by
Parramatta and Holroyd councils which offer free collection or
disposal of small amounts of asbestos from residences during
certain times of the year.

At the November 27 meeting, during Asbestos Awareness Month,
councillors voted down a report to explore asbestos removal
initiative. Local asbestos removal expert John Limpus spoke at
the meeting and called on council to look into reduced fees due
to an increase in dumping across the Coast. However, the council
voted not to act on the issue.

Councillor Greg Best, who lodged the initial motion to prepare a
report, was disgusted with the lack of action and brought the
issue back to Monday's meeting.

Councillors unanimously voted to proceed with the report and
liaise with stakeholders, including Safe Work Australia and
Asbestos Diseases of Australia, to prepare a model for an
asbestos removal and disposal policy. This will focus mainly on
domestic asbestos disposal.

Councillor Kyle MacGregor said he had received abusive texts
following the council's November decision. He said he voted down
Councillor Best's initial motion as there was no mention of
consulting relevant agencies.

"If you really cared how to get rid of asbestos, you would do it
properly," he said.

He said council needed to talk to experts and use a "rational
evidence-based policy" to deal with the issues.

Mayor Jane Smith agreed and said the original motion was lacking.

"Council has called on the chief executive officer to provide a
report on what other councils are doing in this key area so we
can model best practice and a progressive approach to this key
issue," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Legal Battle vs Demolition Co
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff of Mesothelioma.com reported that in 2012, a
whistleblower brought claims against the Champagne Demolition,
LLC, for improperly disposing of asbestos. Now, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York has found the company
guilty, based on the fact that the former employee was fired
after reporting the illegal practices to a supervisor.

Upon being fired, the whistleblower filed a complaint with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). An
investigation was opened through the agency's regional Office of
Whistleblower Protection Programs in New York. The agency found
merit in the claims of unsafe asbestos removal work conditions at
a school site reported by the worker, as well as the firing and
threats made by the company.

It's not uncommon for schools to need asbestos work. Many still
contain the toxic material in their insulation, floor and ceiling
tiles, and more, largely due to its excellent heat- and fire-
resistant properties. Unfortunately for many students this year,
back to school meant back to asbestos.

According to OSHA Regional Administrator Robert Kulik, "Every
worker has the right to report potential safety and health
hazards without fear of harassment, termination, or retaliation."
It was ruled by the program that the company owner Joseph A.
Champagne did indeed discriminate against the employee with
retaliatory acts in violation of OSHA Section 11(c).

"We are pleased with the jury verdict and the judge's ruling to
hold this employer accountable for violating the employee's
rights," said Kulik.

Due to the nature of the job, construction workers are often
faced with toxic substances such as asbestos while in confined
spaces. This greatly contributes to the group being the most
hazardous of all land-based occupations (and second only to the
fishing industry overall).

A surprising 17% of construction injuries are due to exposure to
toxic materials, the deadliest of which is asbestos. About 10,000
workers are predicted to die each year for the next ten years
from diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. These diseases
are exclusively caused by working with (or around) asbestos
without adequate protective measures.

The U.S. District Court has ordered Champagne to pay $103,000 in
back wages, $20,000 in compensatory, and $50,000 in punitive
damages to the worker.

According to New York Regional Solicitor of Labor Jeffrey S.
Rogoff, "This jury verdict and the judge's ruling on this case
underscores the Labor Department's commitment to ensuring that
the law is followed and employees' right to a healthy and safe
workplace is maintained."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Cabinet Relaxes Asbestos Uses Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelum Bandara of Daily Mirror reported that the Sri Lankan
Cabinet decided to relax the ban imposed on the use of Asbestos
roofing materials imported from Russia amid reports that the
Russian Federation had allegedly retaliated by suspending tea
imports from Sri Lanka.

Russia imposed a temporary restriction on tea imports from Sri
Lanka saying a beetle was detected in a consignment of tea
purchased from Sri Lanka.

However, it is believed that this was in retaliation to Sri
Lanka's decision to ban the import of Asbestos roofing materials
from Russia with effect from 2024 on the basis that such roofing
materials were harmful to the environment.

Plantation Industries Minister Navin Dissanayake briefed the
Cabinet on the crisis triggered by the restriction on tea exports
to Russia and is reported to have informed the Cabinet that the
ban on the use of Asbestos roofing materials was a likely factor
that led to this crisis.

President Maithripala Sirisena had subsequently instructed the
Cabinet to withhold the decision to ban the use of roofing
materials for an indefinite period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife's Lung Cancer Caused By Husband's Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Clair Record reported that a
Florida woman alleges she was exposed to asbestos fibers through
her husband, who was previously employed by various companies in
Illinois.

Linda Chagolla and Tom Chagolla filed a complaint on Dec. 6 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants
alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of the general public.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that during the
course Linda Chagolla's life, she was secondarily exposed to
asbestos fibers through her husband Tom, who worked with or
around certain asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by defendants at various locations in
Illinois.

The suit states that on or about Jan. 27, she first became aware
that she developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold Ameren Illinois Co., Aurora Pump Co., The
Boeing Co., and others responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew or should have known that it was toxic
and poisonous and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory
damages of no less than $50,000. They are represented by Randy L.
Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Pipes Vandalism Concerns Municipality
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raeesa Kimmie of Weekend Review reported that "the residents are
not co-operating with the contractor onsite responsible for
replacement of ac pipes and are denying them access to their
yards," a statement read.

A total of 150 ball valves have been stolen, vandalized and
number of yard connections have been removed by residents during
the night.

"We urge Zone 1 residents to stop damaging municipal property as
it is resulting in money and time lost to complete the project,"
the Municipality said.

An appeal to the community at large has been made to report any
person seen damaging or vandalizing the ac pipes to their local
police station, CLO and Ward Councilor.

"Vandalizing of municipal property is a criminal offence and
hampers service delivery to communities," the municipality
concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Council Awaits Verdict on Asbestos Mess
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Visentin of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Blue
Mountains council claims it has done everything in its power to
respond to allegations of asbestos management breaches, while it
awaits the government's verdict over whether it will be
suspended.
The council's case for survival is contained in a lengthy
submission to Local Government Minister Gabrielle Upton, who
issued the council with a seven-day deadline to respond to the
allegations or face a three-month suspension.

The council urged the minister against suspending the elected
body, claiming it "has acted in a timely, cooperative, open and
appropriate manner" in responding to asbestos issues.

Speaking ahead of an extraordinary council meeting, Mayor Mark
Greenhill said he was "confident" Ms Upton would accept the
council's position.

"To suspend us, the minister would have to be of the view we were
not acting on the information that was coming to us. Clearly that
is not right."

Cr Greenhill said the elected council first became aware of the
council's asbestos issues in May, and in the months since had
been working with SafeWork NSW and the Environmental Protection
Authority to resolve the issues.

The council was issued with several improvement notices by
SafeWork NSW in November, after its inspectors discovered
asbestos at a number of council-owned properties, including at
pre-schools in Wentworth Falls and Katoomba.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Pushes for Best Fin'l Compensation Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
"We are the leading advocates in the United States for US Navy
Veterans or people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma and
our number one goal is they receive the best possible financial
compensation settlement. We are also the leading advocate for a
Navy Veteran or people with mesothelioma hiring the nation's most
skilled, capable and experienced full-time mesothelioma attorneys
because having the best legal representation and receiving the
best possible compensation are directly related, as we would like
to discuss anytime at 800-714-0303.

"What most diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, or their family
members, do not realize is mesothelioma financial compensation
can range from hundreds of thousands, to millions of dollars, and
only the nation's most capable mesothelioma attorneys get the
best financial compensation settlement results for their clients
on a consistent basis.  If a diagnosed person, or their family
members, would call us at 800-714-0303 we will provide them with
instant access to some of the nation's most experienced
mesothelioma lawyers. The lawyers we suggest know how to optimize
a mesothelioma financial compensation claim. Again, our passion
is making certain all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma really do
get the best financial compensation settlement."

Reasons Why A US Navy Veteran or Person with Mesothelioma Should
Call the Mesothelioma Victims Centerfor Instant Access to The
Nation's Leading Mesothelioma Compensation Attorneys:

The full-time mesothelioma lawyers recommended by the
Mesothelioma Victims Center are either managing partners or
senior partners at their law firms. Their law practice is 100%
focused on mesothelioma financial compensation claims on a
nationwide basis, and they have a decade plus of family
references.

The mesothelioma lawyers recommended by the group have all had at
least one million-dollar mesothelioma compensation settlement for
their clients within the last 12 months.

The extremely skilled mesothelioma attorneys suggested by the
Mesothelioma Victims Center can be in the home of a diagnosed
person typically within 48 hours for a house call to get the
specifics of how or where the person was exposed to asbestos.
This information is incredibly vital because it becomes the
foundation for the mesothelioma compensation claim.

Vital financial compensation tip for a US Navy Veteran or a
person with mesothelioma from the Mesothelioma Victims Center:
"Our tip would be please do not put off starting the mesothelioma
compensation process if you have recently been diagnosed with
this rare cancer caused by asbestos exposure and please call us
at 800-714-0303 before you hire a lawyer or law firm. We want to
make certain you are dealing directly with some of the most
qualified mesothelioma lawyers in the United States."

US workers are still being exposed to asbestos even though there
are extremely strict laws governing exposure to asbestos. The EPA
provides a list of products not banned because they contain
asbestos:  https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos.
According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest
incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Washington, and Oregon.

However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma Victims Center
receives a US Navy Veteran or a person with mesothelioma could
live in any state including New York, Florida, California, Texas,
Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, or Alaska.

High-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos include US Navy
Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery
workers, steel mill workers, manufacturing/factory workers, pulp
or paper mill workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics,
machinists, miners, construction workers, insulators, rail road
worker, roofers, or firemen. As a rule, these types of workers
were exposed to asbestos in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or
1980's. US Navy Veterans make up about one-third of all US
Citizens who are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year.

For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the
National Institutes of Health's web site related to this rare
form of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/types/mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Agency Pushes for Asbestos ID, Monitoring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avneel Chand of The Fiji Times Online reports that there is a
need to identify and monitor people who have been exposed to
asbestos, says the director for Asbestos Disease Research
Institute for the University of Sydney, Professor Ken Takahashi.

He was speaking at the first Fiji Asbestos Symposium at the Pearl
Resort and Spa, Pacific Harbour.
Prof Takahashi said it was very likely that asbestos had been
used in public and residential buildings and those stakeholders
should be on their toes unless proven otherwise.

"It is not only construction work. Asbestos can be used in a wide
range of industrial applications because they are heat resistant,
good friction material, so the country has to first look into the
sources of asbestos usage," he said.

"You have to think about defecting diseases, but that is
secondary to finding the sources because once you know the
sources, you know the people who might have been exposed then you
will be able to target a certain section of the population that
maybe at risk of developing the disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Appeals for Info on Mom's Mesothelioma Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine King of Newham Recorder reported that the son of a Royal
London Dock canteen worker who served food to employees wearing
overalls covered with asbestos is appealing for information
following her death from mesothelioma.

Shirley Bull passed away from the asbestos-related condition in
August and now her son is appealing to anyone who worked with his
mother to contact him.

Kevin believes his mother was exposed to the deadly material
while she worked for the Port of London Authority between 1965
and 1980.

During those years Mrs Bull worked in several canteens at the
docks serving breakfast and lunch to the workers alongside a
number of other women, including a colleague with the nickname
'Big Lil'.

At the time, a range of commodities were being shipped into the
Royal London Docks including cargos of hessian sacks filled with
asbestos.

The material would often leak from the sacks on to the overalls
of dockers and stevedores who unloaded them from the holds of th

Oblivious to the dangers the workers would playfully slapping
each other on the back or clap their hands together to send up
clouds of asbestos dust.

They would also go straight to the canteen in the overalls where
Mrs Bull would serve them their meals.

In addition catering staff like Mrs Bull would travel round in
mobile canteens serving them hot drinks and snacks.

Mrs Bull spent a large proportion of her time stationed at the
Great Eastern canteen where she worked under chef collier, who
was head chef at the time.

She would have been well known amongst the workers as where her
twin sons Kevin and Paul.

Kevin's solicitor Isobel Lovett, partner and head of industrial
disease at law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said: "Mesothelioma is
almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos and Mrs Bull
only came into contact with asbestos during her time working at
the Royal London Docks. "We are appealing on behalf of, Kevin, to
all former colleagues who worked with her at the Royal London
Docks to help with the investigation into her exposure to
asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ace Hardware Sued by Couple for Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a couple is
suing a number of asbestos products manufacturers, citing alleged
negligence.

Melanie Granger and Jeff Granger filed a complaint on Dec. 8 in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Ace Hardware
Corp., Arvinmeritor Inc., The DOW Chemical Co., and others
alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at some
time during Melanie Granger's life she was exposed to asbestos
fibers as a result of her father's and her father-in-law's work.
They worked with or around asbestos-containing products, and
allegedly would carry home the fibers on their persons and
clothes.

On Oct. 9, 2015, Melanie Granger was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
an asbestos-induced disease that was allegedly wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were available, and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury; and seek compensatory
damages of more than $25,000, and any other relief as the court
deems just and equitable. They are represented by Benjamin R.
Schmickle of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Producer Brazil Bans Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma + Asbestors Awareness Center reported that this year
has been a rollercoaster ride for many. From conflicts in
politics to major shake-ups in Hollywood, the year has definitely
had its ups and downs. The same can be said for all the news
surrounding asbestos in 2017. The mineral has made headlines for
both good and bad reasons throughout the year.

As the year draws to a close, we wanted to highlight a few of the
bigger stories around asbestos.

Top Asbestos Producer Brazil Bans the Toxin

Brazil, the third highest producer of asbestos in the world,
announced the decision to ban asbestos in the country in the last
week of November. The fight to ban asbestos in Brazil has been
ongoing for decades, and had even seen some progress over the
summer. In August, ten states went to court and were granted
permission to ban the toxin, including in Sao Paulo and Rio de
Janeiro. Reports estimated the ban in just these ten states would
protect over 130 million citizens.

The Federal Supreme Court in Brazil had attempted to ban the
toxin in the whole nation, but didn't receive enough votes at the
time to take action. In November, the court came back to the
issue and with a vote of 7 to 2, agreed to ban asbestos for good.
The ban includes mining, processing, distribution and even
marketing of the toxin.

This ban in particular is a huge step in the right direction, as
the asbestos industry was booming in Brazil. The country produced
around hundreds of thousands of tons of asbestos each year.  Most
notably, Brazil produced 306,500 tons in 2011, which was a 55%
increase of production from the prior year. Production had
dropped and slowed down a bit since then, but Brazil remained
among the top producers and consumers in the world.

Their ban helps show that despite facing a potentially negative
economic impact from closing mines and asbestos workers losing
those jobs, the severe health risks of exposure outweigh any
economic gain from the industry.

EPA's Asbestos Evaluation Continues

In late 2016, advocates were relieved to see the inclusion of
asbestos in the first ten chemical investigations conducted by
the Environmental Protection Agency. As the investigations ramped
up this year, the public started to receive more information on
their study and the scope of the evaluations.

In June, the EPA released scoping documents for all ten
investigations, including some data about the amounts and
instances where these chemicals have been and are currently used.
With this initial information, the public learned the United
States imported around 340 metric tons of asbestos in 2015,
mostly from Brazil and some from Russia. All of the imports were
used for the chlor-alkali industry, which is the only industry in
America that still actively relies on the mineral in their
processes. Though chlorine can produced with many safer
alternatives, there are still many plants that have not switched
over from asbestos diaphragms, citing the amount of time and
money such a move could take.

Earlier this year, however, it was also announced that the scale
of these investigations would be more limited. In the case of
asbestos, the administration said the investigation would only
include products still being manufactured or entering the market.
According to the United States Geological Survey, this would
exclude over 8.9 million tons of asbestos products that have been
in use from 1970 to 2016. Since asbestos is more regulated and
not as widely used today, these legacy uses of the mineral should
be a big focus of the investigation as their danger remains.

Dialing back the review has caused many to speak out about the
dangers of such limits. During a commenting period, asbestos
professionals, advocates, and many agencies spoke out about how
legacy uses should be part of the investigation as they cause the
most risk of exposure. At the same time, chemical and asbestos
industry officials asked the EPA to ignore their continued use of
asbestos, claiming it to be used in a safe manner. It remains
unclear how the rest of the investigation will go, but the hopes
of a future ban on the toxin seems to be at risk.

Asbestos in the Drinking Water

In the same vein as dangerous past uses of asbestos, communities
in America and Puerto Rico faced health risks of asbestos
leaching into their drinking water from old pipes and as a result
of natural disasters. Residents in two small Texas towns, Divine
and Arp, faced problems this year as old asbestos pipes started
to contaminate their drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act
limits the presence of asbestos in drinking water to 7 million
fibers per liter (MFL). People who drink water above that limit
for an extended period of time face various health issues.
These towns saw fluctuating asbestos contamination, as high as 18
MFL in Divine. Though residents of the town were not told
specifically to stop drinking the water, many did and opted to
buy bottled water instead. The town is currently looking to
replace the old pipes to make the drinking water safe again. The
town of Arp also faced high levels of contamination, which
largely impacted their schools. The town provided water coolers
and clean water, and in the fall construction began to replace
the dangerous water pipes.

Wildfires and hurricanes earlier this year have also put
communities at risk of exposure or asbestos in their drinking
water. Wildfires in Sonoma and Marin counties in California left
the community nervous about oncoming rain bringing asbestos and
other toxins leftover from destroyed buildings into the local
water supply. Toxic ash and debris are always concerns after such
events for contamination and potential mesothelioma diagnosis
decades later.

Puerto Rico faced similar concerns after hurricanes destroyed
many buildings and residences. Officials also highlighted concern
of damage to the 18 Superfund sites, areas with dangerous
environmental hazards requiring intensive cleanup by the EPA.
These sites in addition to older buildings containing hidden
toxins caused concern for contaminated drinking water and
potentially airborne asbestos fibers. It's important for
residents to be aware of the potential for asbestos in such
events and know how to stay safe from exposure.

Hope for the New Year

The dangers of asbestos won't be going away anytime soon, but
some of the news from this year gives us hope. Brazil's ban, as
well as Canada's promised ban for 2018, are big steps in the
right direction. Although the EPA's investigation of asbestos so
far isn't going as expected, there is still hope that they will
be able to expand their research and help lead the nation to a
much needed future ban. In the meantime, stay informed on all
your asbestos news by following our blog through the new year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation Company Exposed Workers to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ellis and Joe Sneve of Argus Leader reported that a
construction company renovating the former Copper Lounge exposed
workers and the public to asbestos before the building collapsed
in 2016, violating federal and state laws for removing the
hazardous material.

Hultgren Construction did not file legally-required paperwork
prior to removing asbestos from the downtown construction site
beginning in October 2016. The material ended up in the Sioux
Falls Regional Landfill's general construction waste area and not
properly disposed of as hazardous waste.

The asbestos, which workers rolled into plastic garbage bags, had
been trucked through town and illegally buried at the landfill,
according to an interview with state officials.

Landfill officials "unknowingly accepted" the bags of asbestos,
said Chad Babcock, an environmental specialist with the South
Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

The illegal disposal and removal occurred despite previous
correspondence between Hultgren Construction President Aaron
Hultgren and DENR regarding asbestos requirements. Those
conversations began as early as 2012 on previous projects.
Hultgren Construction is under federal criminal investigation for
its role in the Dec. 2, 2016 Copper Lounge collapse that killed
Ethan McMahon, a Hultgren employee.

Federal officials have declined to identify the focus of their
investigation. David Ganje, an environmental lawyer, said there
are several federal laws and regulations that address asbestos
removal from buildings and grounds. Violations of those laws can
result in criminal action.

"Asbestos fibers if airborne can be inhaled and are shown to be
the cause of several diseases such as lung cancer, asbestosis and
others," Ganje said.

The city signed a deal with Legacy Developments to build a $50
million hotel and parking ramp project adjacent to where the
Copper Lounge stood. Aaron Hultgren is an officer with the
company, as is Norm Drake. Legacy Developments was the developer
on the Copper Lounge project and Drake was identified in a state
investigation as the manager for an investment group that owned
the Copper Lounge.

The state investigation into the asbestos removal ended in May
but was not publicly announced. The Argus Leader obtained
documents Wednesday, which show the state levied a $20,000 fine
against Hultgren Construction.

City Councilor Greg Neitzert said the Council wasn't made aware
of either the criminal investigation or asbestos being illegally
dumped in the landfill prior to approving the parking ramp
agreement with Legacy Developments. Hultgren is a guarantor on
the project.

"I don't know if it would have changed my decision because
Hultgren Construction was not building any part of this
development," he said. "But it would seem that it would be
material and I'd have liked to know to at least consider it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From $1.47-Mil. Asbestos Penalty Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hopey, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that the
Allegheny County Health Department has denied a penalty-reduction
appeal by Ramesh and Vikas Jain, who had claimed they couldn't
pay a $1.47 million fine for alleged asbestos removal violations
at their multi-million-dollar redevelopment project on the former
Westinghouse research and technology park property in Churchill.

Department hearing officer Max Slater issued the decision in the
Jains' "ability to pay hearing" and ordered them to pay the full
fine or post a bond for that amount within 30 days.

The Jains could appeal to Allegheny County Common Pleas Court,
Mr. Slater said, a move that would delay scheduling the Jains'
appeal to the health department on the merits of the case. The
state Air Pollution Control Act requires prepayment of fines
before an appeal on the merits of the case can move forward.

The penalty amount, the largest asbestos-related fine ever
assesed by the health department -- was levied in a June 2
emergency order that alleged more than 130,000 square feet of
asbestos floor tile and pipe insulation was illegally removed
from multiple buildings on the 135-acre former Westinghouse
property.

The father and son developers, who live in Mt. Lebanon, have
denied the charges. Attorney Maurice Nernberg, who represented
the Jains, did not return calls seeking comment on the decision.

According to the enforcement order, the Jains did not have the
required permits to handle or remove asbestos, workers were not
provided with protective clothing or breathing masks when
grinding and handling the material, and no precautions were were
taken to prevent asbestos dust, which can cause cancer, from
becoming airborne outside the buildings. In addition, there is no
record that the asbestos-containing material was disposed of in
an approved landfill.

Mr. Slater, in his 15-page decision, took note of the Jains'
assets of between $13 million and $14 million, personal tax
returns and tax returns for nine companies they own. During two
days of hearings on the appeal in August, Dean DeLuca, the health
department's air quality enforcement chief, said the most
conservative estimate of what the Jains could afford to pay in a
civil penalty was about $1.23 million.

Mr. Slater stated in the decision that "the ACHD made a strong
argument that appellants are able to pay the civil penalty."

In October, Mr. Slater dismissed charges the health department
had filed against Raymond Sida, an employee of the Jains, who
testified they tried to set him up to be the "fall guy" for the
illegal asbestos-removal operation. Mr. Sida said the Jains
misrepresented the asbestos-containing material as safe to handle
to a crew of Guatemalan nationals who worked at the site.

Subsequent county testing found some of the material contained up
to 65 percent amosite asbestos, which has been found to cause
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Doctor's Office Renovation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hutchins of Herald Democrat reported that the future of
former doctor's offices on Martin Luther King Street remains
uncertain after developers gave an update on plans to renovate
them to apartments. Developer Chip Piazza asked the Denison City
Council for extra time to prep the site for redevelopment after
asbestos was discovered.

"The situation is that after the asbestos is removed I need to do
some soul searching on if the property should be razed to the
ring site or if I can afford to push the property forward,"
Piazza said during the meeting.

In a unanimous vote, the council approved giving Piazza 90 days
to complete the interior demolition of the site in preparation of
proposed future redevelopment. Under city ordinance, Piazza will
need to give a progress report on the demolition every 30 days.

Through much of the early 20th century, asbestos was used as a
building material, but use declined in the 1980s as evidence of
its toxicity began to grow. Illnesses related to the material
include several forms of respiratory cancer and asbestosis, the
scaring of the lungs connected to the inhalation of the material.

In mid-October, Piazza approached the council with plans to
redevelop the site into 16 residential apartments. This occurred
during a meeting where the council was expected to vote on
authorizing the demolition of the property.

The council ultimately agreed to give Piazza 60 days to complete
the interior demolition and asked that he return to city staff at
that time to discuss the next step for development. However, with
asbestos found at the site, this demolition has been stalled.
"So far, there has yet to be anything done here," Denison
building official Betty Floyd said Monday. "It is exactly the way
it was (in October)."

Since the initial tests, Piazza said he has had independent
sampling and a third-party planner come to the site to discuss
the removal of the material.

"Ultimately, you are trying to narrow down and define what has
asbestos in it," he said.

In the case of the doctor's offices, Piazza said it seems to have
been used in the compound on the drywall. In order to abate the
material, Piazza said it will require the removal of large
portions of the drywall within the buildings and other materials,
including screws, that held it in place.

Piazza said he has someone under contract to perform the
abatement, which is scheduled to start on Jan. 3 and take about
three weeks to complete. Following this, Piazza said he will
continue with the internal demolition as planned. Future plans
will be determined at that time, he said.

"A lot of that depends on what my demo numbers are after the
abatement," Piazza said.

In September, Piazza pulled a specific demolition permit for
interior demolition of the properties, but work has yet to start.
Piazza said in October that his intention was to take the
buildings down to their frames and bricks in preparation for the
remodel.

In previous cases where a property owner has attempted to save a
structure from demolition, the council typically votes to give
them six months to complete the necessary repairs. However, in
most cases, these requests are made by individual homeowners and
Piazza's request was new territory for the city.

With last week's approval of extra time for this project, City
Manager Jud Rex said the city was setting a new precedent as this
situation had yet to come up in its demolition program.

If the project is not feasible after internal demolition, Denison
Development Services Director Gabe Reaume said there may still be
potential for development at the site. Reaume said there has been
discussion and consideration of demolishing the former Texoma
Medical Center complex, which sits adjacent to the offices. If
the two were combined, Reaume said there would be ample room for
redevelopment opportunities including an apartment complex or a
residential subdivision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Results Confirm Asbestos Hotel Rubble
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Reed of Curry Coastal Pilot reported that test results are
back on the remains of the rubble that was the pink hotel
building in Smith River and experts have found measurable amounts
of asbestos and lead.

Tests were done in recent weeks by GHD in Eureka, which conducts
lead surveys and asbestos testing.

Code Enforcement Officer Dominic Mello said test results showed
the material to have both lead and asbestos but it was no
surprise considering the age of the building. Most older
buildings contain asbestos, which can be found in some modern
building supplies as well, he noted.

However, the presence of asbestos and lead requires specially
licensed contractors to do the cleanup work, typically at a
higher cost.

Mello said the Environmental Protection Agency outlines the
protocols for cleaning up asbestos-laden materials.

He said lead and asbestos were found in a few areas that will
likely be easy to isolate and remove, such as a chimney flue,
some roofing on an adjacent building and in some joint compounds
in the rubble.

As far as posing a threat to the public, Mello said there is
essentially none, as the material is not being disturbed in such
a way that particles could become airborne.

Should a licensed contractor remove the debris, methods such as
water and vacuum sealing will be used to keep dust from blowing
from the site.

In August, County Hearing Officer William B. Cater declared the
property a public nuisance, triggering an abatement process for
the building.

"At this point code enforcement is working with administration to
follow through on the hearing officer's decision to clean up and
abate the property," Mello said.

Until further notice, the property will remain as it is and no
scheduled date for cleanup has been established.

Mello noted in a typical abatement, the county will seek to
recover costs through a lien process.

Mello said he spoke to Saffan Panahi, the hotel's owner, in
August, but has not been able to communicate with him since.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Insulated House Risk Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss of Surviving Mesothelioma reported that people who
live in houses with loose-fill asbestos insulation may be up to
five times more likely to eventually develop deadly malignant
mesothelioma.

That is the finding of a 30-year Australian study of more than a
million people in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where
asbestos-containing insulation had been used in some houses.
The study found that, not only do residents of asbestos-insulated
homes have a higher mesothelioma risk, but their chances of
getting several others types of cancer were also elevated.

Researchers with the National Centre for Epidemiology and
Population Health at Australian National University and the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the University of
Canberra used the national Medicare database to identify
1,035,578 ACT residents.

The team then determined that 17,248 (2%) of these residents had
lived in a home containing loose-fill asbestos insulation.  Seven
of the 285 people diagnosed with mesothelioma had lived in one of
these homes.

Although the numbers may sound small, lead researcher Rosemary J
Korda, PhD, with Australian National University says they are
significant.

"The adjusted incidence of mesothelioma in males who had lived at
an affected property was 2.5 times that of unexposed males,"
writes Dr. Korda in The Lancet Public Health. Interestingly, no
cases of malignant mesothelioma were identified in women who had
lived in affected homes.

These women did, however, face a higher risk of colorectal
cancer. Men who had lived in these homes were also more likely to
be diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Korda and her colleagues conclude that residential asbestos
insulation "is likely to be unsafe" and say their findings have
"important health, social, financial, and legal implications for
governments and communities in which asbestos has been used to
insulate houses."

Public health experts have long warned about the dangers of
handling or otherwise disturbing loose-fill insulation that might
contain asbestos. But few studies have attempted to quantify the
mesothelioma risk of having lived in a house with this
insulation.
Unfortunately, the danger is not confined to Australia. Asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite insulation was common the US (under the
brand name Zonolite) until the 1990s when the Libby Mine where it
was sourced was closed.

Tens of thousands of homes and public buildings still contain
asbestos-contaminated insulation which may be raising the
likelihood of a mesothelioma diagnosis for people who live in
them.

Asbestos exposure is the primary cause of both pleural and
peritoneal mesotheliomaworldwide. Usually, that exposure happens
at work.

In general, asbestos insulation is not considered a danger until
it begins to break down and turn to dust. When that happens, even
something as simple as putting a nail in a wall or hanging a
light fixture can release potentially deadly asbestos dust.

Vermiculite insulation is in the form of tiny pellets and is
typically grey-brown or silver-gold. Unlike puffy types of
insulation, it lays flat and firm in the joist cavity.

Homeowners who suspect that their loose-fill insulation may
contain asbestos should seek professional help to isolate or
remove it in order to minimize the risk for malignant
mesothelioma and other health problems.

Korda, RJ, "Risk of cancer associated with residential exposure
to asbestos insulation: a whole-population cohort study",
November 2017, Lancet Public Health

Wallender, Lee, "How to Identify Dangerous Asbestos Insulation",
February 2, 2017, TheSpruce.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pays $200K as Asbestos Abatement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHAV.NET reported that a Quincy construction company and a New
Hampshire-based asbestos abatement company have been ordered to
pay more than $200,000 to settle allegations of asbestos
poisoning during the construction of Haverhill's Harbor Place.

Attorney General Maura Healey announced that the judgment filed
in Suffolk Superior Court settles the suit brought against
Dellbrook Construction and A-Best Abatement. The AG's suit
alleges that the companies failed to comply with the state's
clean air and asbestos safe handling laws.

"Companies must ensure that any construction and demolition work
involving asbestos is done in a safe and legal way to protect
workers and the public," Healey said.

During the construction of Harbor Place, the defendants allegedly
polluted the air with asbestos, a mineral fiber that can cause
cancer if improperly handled. The complaint alleged Dellbrook
allowed a pipe containing asbestos to be crushed into pieces and
scattered in open air around the property.

The companies also faced fines tied to a renovation project at
Lowell's Mass Mills residential development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Fails to Penalize Company Dumping Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sneve and Jonathan Ellis of Argus Leader reported that the
city of Sioux Falls did nothing to penalize a construction
company that illegally dumped asbestos from a downtown building
that collapsed in 2016.

The city runs the Sioux Falls Regional Landfill, where Hultgren
Construction trucked asbestos removed from the Copper Lounge
building. The asbestos was disposed of with ordinary construction
rubble, a violation of state and federal law, after it was
illegally removed from the building's basement.

Typically, before the landfill will accept asbestos materials,
the person or company making the drop needs approval from the
city's environmental division. The material must be wetted down,
bagged and placed in a dedicated area of the landfill. It can't
be disposed of when winds are over 15 mph and on days when the
landfill is muddy because it must be promptly buried.

Assistant City Attorney Diane Best said in an email that the
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
investigated the incident and the city took no other action other
than to assist in the investigation.

"The investigation was handled by the state," she wrote. "The
Sioux Falls Regional Sanitary Landfill  employees cooperated. The
state DENR was the appropriate authority to handle this asbestos
violation."

City officials who work at the landfill have the authority to
inspect loads for banned materials and levy fines, according to
the Regional Wast Solid Master Plan.

The state fined Hultgren Construction and CLP Investments, an
entity managed by Norm Drake, $20,151. CLP owned the building
when the asbestos was removed. Both Drake and Hultgren
Construction President Aaron Hultgren are officers of Legacy
Developments, which was the developer on the Copper Lounge
project.

The U.S. Attorney's Office has opened a criminal investigation
into the collapse. Court documents obtained by the Argus Leader
indicate that prosecutors are reviewing 150 gigabytes of material
related to the project, which resulted in the death of a Hultgren
Construction employee who was crushed in the collapse.

The criminal investigation comes on top of a civil investigation
by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. OSHA fined
Hultgren Construction more than $200,000 for safety violations.
Hultgren appealed the fines, but that appeal has been postponed
pending the outcome of the federal investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grand Jury Subpoenaes Asbestos Removal Subcon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Jordan of The Gazette reported that a federal grand jury
will consider possible criminal charges relating to asbestos
removal at Jefferson High School in 2013, according to a former
subcontractor subpoenaed to testify before the panel in January.

Brent Busch, of Cedar Rapids, received a subpoena from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation
Division, based in Lenexa, Kan., to testify before a grand jury
Jan. 9 at the federal courthouse in Cedar Rapids.

Busch, who was an electrical subcontractor during a geothermal
upgrade at Jefferson in the summer of 2013, said an EPA agent
called him to say she wanted him to testify about what he saw at
Jefferson and, specifically, about a photo he took June 26, 2013,
that appears to show asbestos removal being done without
adequately protecting workers and others in the school from
airborne exposure to the cancer-causing substance.

"There was just this 3-inch wide caution tape," Busch said in an
interview. "Anyone with a brain knows that's not going to stop
any asbestos."

The focus of the federal investigation isn't clear from the
subpoena or from Busch's conversation with Adrienne Ciolli, a
special agent with the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division. But
Cedar Rapids school district officials said they are not a
target.

"The District cannot comment on the existence of any potential
investigation other than to say that if there is an investigation
regarding this matter, the District is confident that it is not
the target of that investigation," spokeswoman Akwi Nji said in
an email Wednesday.

Nji was not able to confirm the asbestos contractor hired by the
district to work on Jefferson.

In August, the district reached a settlement with the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources over asbestos violations found
during a 2015 construction project at Washington High School.

In that project, the Iowa DNR found the district and Abatement
Specialties, a Cedar Rapids contractor, did not remove all
asbestos-containing material from the building and did not
adequately wet the material or seal it in leak-tight containers
or wrapping.

In the settlement, filed Aug. 30 in Linn County District Court,
the district admitted "sufficient evidence exists for the court
to enter a finding of the violations," but denied liability.

The district agreed to produce a video on asbestos requirements
within schools and make it available online to Iowa districts by
spring.

The state's case involving Abatement Specialties and the
Washington High work still is open, said Geoff Greenwood,
spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General.

The Gazette sought comment from Abatement Specialties. A detailed
message left with an office employee was not returned by a
company executive. Later in the day, man who answered the phone
declined to comment.

This is the latest development in a story that started July 8,
2015, when Washington High School was closed after air tests
showed unacceptable levels of asbestos air fibers in the air
during a three-year project to replace its heating and
ventilation system.

When Busch saw news reports about the Washington closure, he
remembered having similar concerns when he worked on Jefferson's
geothermal upgrade in 2013. At the time of the Jefferson project,
he noticed a lack of tenting to confine asbestos materials and
took photos. He talked with several project leaders, he said, but
was told air tests did not show a problem.

While school was not in session during the Jefferson
construction, there were workers in the building as well as
occasionally teachers, administrators and students who came for
summer camps, Busch said.

Busch said he called the Iowa DNR in fall 2015 and left a
detailed voicemail about what he'd seen at Jefferson, but did not
receive a return call.

He talked with KGAN-TV in February 2016 about the lack of action.

Busch said he was surprised when Ciolli called, asking whether he
would be available to testify Jan. 9 in Cedar Rapids about the
asbestos removal at Jefferson. She followed up with an emailed
subpoena, which Busch showed The Gazette.

A grand jury, which consists of 16 to 23 community members,
listens to evidence presented by a federal prosecutor to
determine if there is probable cause to believe a person or
entity has committed a crime and should stand trial. If the grand
jury decides there is enough evidence, it will issue an
indictment.

Grand jury hearings are private since they can end without any
indictments.

"I can't comment on any grand jury activity," Ciolli told The
Gazette.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in High-Rise for Senior Citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Campbell for the NEW4JAX reported that more than 250
people spent Christmas in local hotels after a fire forced them
to evacuate a Southside Jacksonville high-rise and trace amounts
of asbestos was later found in the building.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber typically found in older buildings
that can become airborne and cause health problems, like
mesothelioma and even lung cancer, if inhaled.

Cambridge Management, which manages the property, told News4Jax
that a licensed asbestos cleanup crew is being brought in to get
the building up to code and the cleanup process will be
"aggressive" so that residents can return as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the shelter set up by the Red Cross at Faith
United Methodist Church closed, and evacuated residents were
moved into hotel rooms.

"Ensuring the safety and comfort of our residents is our top
priority as we continue to address the situation at our
facility," management said in a statement.

It's unclear when they will be able to go home.

"Our full focus remains on minimizing the impact to our
residents," the statement said. "We recognize the hardship this
situation presents, particularly as we enter the holiday season,
and are working to resolve the situation as soon as possible."

But some residents told News4Jax that the management company
hasn't been keeping them informed, and they're frustrated.

Resident Bernice Kendrick told News4Jax, two days before
Christmas, she received a letter from Cambridge Management,
stating residents would be provided free JTA transportation every
day including Christmas. However, Kendrick said she has not seen
any buses to heard anything else.

News4Jax reached out to Cambridge Management and JTA for comment,
but is not expecting a response until after Christmas.

"The big frustration is not having any real information about
what's going on. Cambridge seems like it's dragging its heels,"
resident Teddy Rudd said. "I don't know whether they're trying to
bury information, but we're not really getting information."

Rudd said the timeline for when they can return keeps changing.

"Not being able to have a normal life and know when things are
going to get back to normal. News keeps going around that it's 24
hours, but then it's 48 hours, and then it's 72 hours," Rudd
said. "Who knows what's going on?"

Crews have been working to clean up water, smoke and fire damage
after a fire broke out around 3:30 a.m. on the eighth floor of
the complex, which is on Philips Highway just North of Emerson
Street.

Five residents and a firefighter were injured, but they are
expected to be OK. The fire marshal said none of the injuries
were directly from the fire but rather from smoke inhalation and
pre-existing medical conditions.

The fire marshal turned the building back over the Cambridge
Management about 6:30 p.m. Monday, allowing crews to begin
repairs.

Power was restored to most floors and the common areas by 2:30
p.m. the next day. Crews were inspecting each unit for safety
before residents could return to the building.

The fire marshal is still investigating but believes the fire was
accidental and started in a cooling/heating unit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Reveals Tremolite Asbestos in Make-Up
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Volz of WJAR reported that Claire's is pulling 17 products
off store shelves, after a Barrington family discovered asbestos
in their 6-year-old daughter's makeup.

The make-up was purchased at store in the Providence Place Mall,
but the family warns this is a nationwide concern.

It was just a few weeks ago when Kristi Warner received the
heartbreaking phone call.

"I physically sank," said Warner. "I ended up sitting on the
ground, just trying to wrap my head around how something like
that could end up in our home."

Warner had been concerned about the ingredients in her 6-year-old
daughter Mackenzie's glitter makeup kit, purchased at Claire's
inside Providence Place. The Barrington mom, who works for Deaton
Law Firm in East Providence, mailed the makeup to an independent
lab in North Carolina.

"In the work that we do, we've come across contaminated
cosmetics, but you just assume that a children's product would be
safe," said Warner.

Warner said Mackenzie's makeup wasn't.

Test results revealed tremolite asbestos, which is a toxic,
cancer-causing material.

Exposure to asbestos has been linked to mesothelioma. It is 100
percent fatal.

"Her response was, 'Am I going to die?" said Warner. "There's no
right answer to that because I don't want to lie to her."

Concerned other kids might be exposed, Kristi and her boss John
Deaton purchased 17 more Claire makeup products from nine
different states.

"This is unusual, so let's get multiple jurisdictions, multiple
states, multiple products and let's see how that results," said
Deaton.

The results weren't good.

Sean Fitzgerald of Scientific Analytical Institute, the scientist
who conducted the tests, told NBC 10 he was shocked by how
pervasive the results were. He found tremolite asbestos in every
single product.

"The fact that the majority of the products came from the store
shelves in the last two weeks means that there are other children
being exposed," said Warner.

Claire's issued a response.

"As a result of today's inquiry from WJAR-TV, we have taken the
precautionary measure of pulling the items in question from sale,
and will be conducting an immediate investigation into the
alleged issues," the statement noted.

The products are being pulled from stores, but it's important to
make sure this makeup isn't already in your home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Trust Fund Exhausted
----------------------------------------------------
The Western News reported that a trust set up in 2012 to help
provide medical benefits to people diagnosed with asbestos-
related disease has been exhausted but not before it could also
help two local organizations in time for Christmas.

The Libby Medical Plan Trust has paid over $13 million dollars to
over 2,224 beneficiaries over the past five years, helping them
pay "for insurance coverage for medical expenses for a disease
that was caused by no fault of their own," Roger Sullivan, an
attorney for McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey, a Kalispell
law firm that helped develop and administer the Trust, states in
a news release.

After making final payouts to 2,010 beneficiaries in 2016, the
Trust was left with a balance of $7,630.84, according to attorney
Dustin Leftridge. Its advisory committee -- LeRoy Thom, Dave
Stephenson and Gayla Benefield -- suggested the Trust donate the
balance to Libby Food Pantry and Libby Senior Citizens Center.
With approval by District Court Judge Matt Cuffe, the Trust was
closed and the final amount was split 50/50 between the
organizations, Leftridge said via email.

Leftridge said the Trust was for people diagnosed with an
asbestos-related disease that worked at W.R. Grace, were the
spouse or dependent of a worker, or lived within 20 miles of the
mine and had done so for 12 consecutive months before Jan. 1,
2000.

During W.R. Grace bankruptcy proceedings, Leftridge's firm
represented Libby claimants.

"As part of the Bankruptcy settlement, the law firms were able to
secure two major provisions on behalf of the Libby claimants," he
wrote. "First was a provision in the Bankruptcy Trust
Distribution Procedures that allow special treatment of folks
from Libby, allowing them to potentially receive up to eight
times the scheduled amount from the Personal Injury Trust.
Second, we were able to secure a lump sum for medical payments
that resulted in the Libby Medical Plan Trust."

Leftridge said that $19.5 million was deposited into the Trust,
and beneficiaries were paid twice a year to supplement their
health coverage.

"The Trust was set up to provide benefits as long as funds
remained," Leftridge wrote. Though the Libby Medical Plan Trust
has been closed, the Personal Injury Trust is currently accepting
claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Voices Concern of Asbestos in School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff of Mesothelioma.com reported that Parents of
students at a west Baltimore elementary middle school are voicing
concerns over possible asbestos work to the roof that will be
done while kids are still attending classes.

"I have a grandchild here. I have a nephew here," said Tracey
Goggins. "My nephew has asthma and I'm worried about kids and the
staff help. I love the school."

Parents' hope is for the Rosemont Elementary Middle School to be
shut down until the work is complete. Right now, the project is
scheduled to begin this month and could last up to one year.

"The roof is leaking substantially," said City School Chief
Operating Officer Keith Scroggins. The roof hasn't been replaced
since the building opened 47 years ago.

Parents received a letter in the mail that stated, "Please note
that this project involves removal and demolition of the existing
roof, which is old and may contain asbestos."

The letter went on to mention how daily air samples will be taken
and how any dust or debris from the roof work will be removed
before students and staff return to the building.

"The asbestos is not friable, in that it doesn't blow away. It'll
be removed under mitigation standards by a certified company,"
said Scroggins.

Some parents want more. According to Goggins, "I need for them to
assure me that my child is going to be safe; that she is not
going to become ill while they're doing the work on the roof."

"The project is not going to proceed until four o'clock in the
afternoon, when everyone is gone," said Scroggins. "There will
not be any work done, certainly no asbestos removal, while
students and staff members are in the building."

Rosemont Elementary Middle School is not alone when it comes to
asbestos problems. Many schools were made with asbestos
insulation, floor, and ceiling tiles. Plus, a plethora of other
building products made use of the mineral.

Asbestos problems in Baltimore aren't limited to schools, either.
The city has been home to hundreds of hospitals, public
buildings, and jobsites where workers, visitors, and residents
can be exposed to the carcinogenic material.

In fact, it's been proven asbestos has posed health risks to
school teachers. The National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), in a study conducted between 1999 and 2001,
found a substantially elevated rate of mesothelioma cancer among
school teachers in the U.S., whose only known exposure was on the
job.

For students, there are ways parents can help protect their
children from asbestos in schools. Refer to this guide by
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Investigative Journalist Gary Cohn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital's Asbestos Management Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Goodwin of Otago Daily Times reported that a "cumbersome"
and costly way of managing asbestos at Dunedin Hospital has been
criticised in an independent report.

In areas identified as potentially contaminated, onerous
procedures were triggered involving tents and protective gear.

The testing system was too narrow and created unnecessary alarm
and expense, the report shows.

"The nurses and the general public appear to be used to seeing
tents set up so that does not appear to cause any significant
issues but ... the system is cumbersome and causes delays."

Time-consuming precautions continued after expensive
decontamination in some areas because of confusion over which
areas had been cleaned.

The DHB then delayed testing other areas because of a fear of
triggering the measures.

"It is understood some public areas such as general wards,
hallways, and lifts of the main ward and other buildings have not
all been assessed.

"It is understood that these areas have been perceived by
Southern DHB as being more difficult to manage if restrictions
are required to be put in place based on a positive detection of
asbestos.

"This is due to the operational requirements of the hospital,
which has a duty of care to ensure the hospital can still
function if certain areas are temporarily restricted."

Relying on swab testing was too narrow, as a positive result did
not mean people were at risk.

"Their reliance on using swab samples and not completing a full
risk assessment using air monitoring has caused issues and will
continue to cause issues until a new approach is agreed upon."

It was uncertain whether the testing protocol was determined by
the DHB or its asbestos contractor, the report said. The
situation was not helped by a lack of guidance from government
agencies about an acceptable exposure level, the report said.

In August, the Otago Daily Times  revealed it had taken 10 days
to change a light fitting and the bill for the asbestos problem
had reached almost $5.5 million.

The ODT requested the independent report in August but the board
only released it after a series of delays.

Chief executive Chris Fleming told the ODT a more effective
approach to asbestos would be implemented in the new year.

"We tackle it very aggressively. And therefore what that has done
is, it's delayed us testing some areas."

He said the public had not been put at risk from the delays.

"The people that are the most at risk around asbestos management
are the tradespeople and the people who are doing the work."

The Ministry of Health commissioned the report after Mr Fleming
asked for help.

"I asked the Ministry of Health for some help because I was
concerned that our approaches and our processes appeared to be
very long and cumbersome and was creating a lot of delays in
simple tasks associated with maintenance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Crashed Tests Positive of Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
NZ Herald reported that a house which went crashing into a
neighboring property during a botched demolition is contaminated
with asbestos.

Kate Paterson, who uses a wheelchair, was trapped with gas
leaking into her home on Moa Rd in Pt Chevalier, Auckland after a
concrete wall from the house next door was pushed down across her
driveway by an excavator.

WorkSafe confirmed that the demolition site had tested positive
for asbestos.

Paterson said she was "really angry" that the entire community
had been subjected to a "massive" health and safety risk.

She said when the wall came crashing down there was a big cloud
of dust, which was blown towards people watching the demolition.

"So all of our neighbours are really panicked . . . it's a busy
family-based community so there were lots of children around
looking at the demolition and no one had any idea that they were
demolishing asbestos."

Paterson said she was also angry that the site foreman allegedly
told her and her neighbours that they had certification to show
the house was not contaminated with asbestos.

"When the demolition started I went and asked [the foreman] 'do
you have an asbestos certificate to say that it's clear?' The
foreman said that he did," she said.

Paterson said she asked the foreman the same question a second
time, after noticing the ceiling and wall panels of the house
looked like asbestos panelling she had seen before, and was met
with the same answer.

It was at that point that she rang WorkSafe and asked them to
test the property, which she followed up with an email.

"I said . . .'it's really scary, they are ripping [the house]
down and this is when asbestos becomes airborne," she said.

Paterson her husband Aaron and sons Oscar, 11, and Ira, 8, have
had to stay in a hotel since the incident.

The botched demolition left a hole in the side of their house and
smashed concrete blocks, windows and tin roof sheeting piled on
the driveway  Paterson's only wheelchair access in and out of the
house.

WorkSafe has placed a prohibition notice on the site.

A WorkSafe spokesperson said a WorkSafe inspector would be
visiting the site every day over the holiday period to make sure
it was being appropriately managed.

Asbestos testing was also carried out at Paterson's house but
returned a negative result.

Auckland Council said it was investigating the demolition work.
WorkSafe had also been notified and was leading an investigation
into safety concerns.








                            *********


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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  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.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *