CAR_Public/180112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, January 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 10



                            Headlines


1220 COLLINS: Faces "Conner" Suit in Eastern District of NY
ABACUS BUSINESS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
AETNA INC: Court Denies Move for Leave to File Late Jury Demand
ALLIANCE GROUND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haurat Says
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Amaral Chiropractic Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Averts Class Action Over New-Hire Benefit
AMERIGAS INC: DHHR Gets $250,000 from Class Action Settlement
ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
APPLE INC: Brand and Hosking Sue over Old Phones' Performance
APPLE INC: Musician Sues Over Third Party Licensing Practices

ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Centino Says
ARSTRAT LLC: Silber Sues over Debt Collections Practices
AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Service Plans
AUSTRALIA: Forest Hill Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Suit
AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers to Pursue PFAS Contamination Suit

AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay
AUSTRALIA: Education Dept. Sued Over Toxic Waratah Gasworks Site
BANK OF AMERICA: "Farrell" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
BAZAARVOICE INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Merger
BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA

BIG PHARMA: City of Palmetto Joins Suit Over Opioid Crisis
BIG PHARMA: Decatur, Limestone County to Launch Opioid Suit
BIG PHARMA: Phenix City Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Bulosan Says
CANADA: Class Actions Means of Justice for Sexual Abuse Survivors

CAPITALA FINANCE: Paskowitz Sues over Share Price Drop
CHARLESTON PLACE: "Knecht" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ash" as Moot
CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding No Role in Class Action Demise
CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of 2 Counts of Stone Street Suit Upheld

COMENITY LLC: Court Stays "Stephens" Pending ACA Int'l Ruling
COMERICA BANK: Katz et al. Sue over Woodbridge Bankruptcy
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Morrow" Suit
COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Eguizubal Says
COMPUTER RECYCLING: Kennedy Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA

CONSERV FLAG: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in S.D. New York
CONTINENTIAL SERVICE: Faces "Casarez" Suit in S.D. of Texas
CORNER TABLE: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern District New York
CSX CORP: Zamansky Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach
CTI BIOPHARMA: Jan. 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Prefers Stay to Arbitration in "Silva"
DEPOMED INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in "Huang" Securities Suit
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Argues in Hip Implant Case Appeal
DISNEY STORE: "Wolz" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
DNC TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Abrica Says

DOLCE INTERNATIONAL: Toler Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Harbin"
EQUIFAX INC: Two NH Data Breach Suits Transferred to Georgia
ERIE INDEMNITY: Breaches Subscriber's Agreement, Ritz Says
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Labaton Expands Securities Case Class Period

GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Chapter 11 May Stay Securities Class Action
GOSCH AUTO: Sued for Wrongfully Classifying Employees
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Remand
HANLEES AUTO: Parr Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
HEAVY WEIGHT: Court Awards $133K Attorney's Fees in "Maldonaldo"

HEFFLER RADETICH: Averts Bank of America Investors' Class Action
HF MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended "Thind" Suit Denied
HTL ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says
JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit
JAVA JOE'S: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in Southern District New York

JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Wage-Theft Class Action Can Proceed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $15-Mil. Pelvic Mesh Verdict
LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA: Plumbers Fund Asks Court to Quash Subpoena
LEANING TREE: Stern & Monahan Sue over Rental Agreement
LEIDOS HEALTH: Bid to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing Partly OK'd

LOS ANGELES, CA: Parents & Teachers Sue Over Construction Plans
MASON TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Fuentes" Moved to Central District of Calif.
MDL 2800: "Fausz" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Whitfill" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Wong" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Benson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Hebrlee" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Smith" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Stiles" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Campbell" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2804: Suit vs AmerisourceBergen Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Pension Fund Suit vs. Purdue Pharma Goes to N.D. Ohio
MEE 759: "Wang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Has Prelim Approval

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Alston" Suit in D. of South Carolina
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Feb. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MONEY MUTUAL: Ct. Won't Certify Interlocutory Appeal in "Rilley"
MORMUGAO PORT: Vasco Residents Urged to File Class Action
NFL: 3rd Cir. Revives Super Bowl Ticket Class Action

NFL: Professor Recommends 15% Cap on Contingency Fees
NISSAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over CVT Problems
NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gift Card Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
OKLAHOMA: Lawsuits Over Jail Overcrowding Pending

OSI SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
PANDORA ECOMM: Lopez Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind
PATRIZIA LUCA INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. of New York
PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Sues over Captive Insurance Policies
PG&E CORPORATION: Faces GER Suit in California State Court

PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Koon" Suit in New Jersey
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Gilliam" Suit in S.D. of New York
PRO CUSTOM: "Sedhom" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
QUDIAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
R.C. TWAY: Fisher Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA

RMH FRANCHISE: Amended "Ivery" Unpaid OT Suit Partially Dismissed
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Fund Alleges Waste of Corporate Assets
RUBY TUESDAY: Executives Balk at Shareholders' Class Action
SAMUEL I WHITE: Court Dismisses with Prejudice "Davis" FDCPA Suit
SEPHORA USA: Court Conditionally Certifies "Hernandez" FLSA Class

SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA
SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
SIRTEX MEDICAL: Confirms IMF Bentham Class Action
SONIC CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach
SRA MANAGEMENT: Jan. 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set

STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Actions Circling Amid Financial Woes
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Class Action Over WRK Models
T.J. MAXX: "Mills" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Suit Moved to New York
TRIS PHARMA: "Ahmed" Suit Alleges Retaliation

UGL: Clime Capital Files Class Action Over Ichthys Writedowns
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Immigrant Detainees' Sexual Assault
UNITED STATES: Undocumented Immigrants Must Be Allowed Abortions
UNITED STATES: Cambodian Detainees Can stay to Fight Deportations
UNITED STATES: Awaits Verdict in J20 Inauguration Protest Suit

UNITED STATES: Bid to Vacate Nov. 20 Orders in Addicks Denied
UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
WEST KENDALL IMPORTS: "Rodas" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Wants Michigan Residents to Join PFAS Suit
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Brockovich Attends PFAS Class Action Meeting

YAZAKI CORP: March 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
YBARRA BROS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

* Australian Gov't Looks Into Legal Fees Amid Class Actions
* HMRC Urged to Take Action Over Long Unpaid Internships
* Klein Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Dismissal
* Law Enforcement Agencies Recover Only Fraction of Lost Wages


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sedgwick Withdraws as Atty for GE in "Johnson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. AO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay "Lineberger" Proceedings Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dr. Burgher Can't be Admitted as Expert Witness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transportation Ins. Summary Ruling Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at Sep.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7MM Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metaldyne Defends Grede's EPA Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had US$13.6-Mil. Loss at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,500 PI Cases at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sep. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Pulls Out Children Makeup Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Improper Removal Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tea Ban Lifted After Allowing Russian Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Abandoned After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Superfund Team Holds Second Meeting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landscaper Who Had Cancer Gets Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alfa-Laval Sued for Late Husband's Lung Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Complicates Apartment Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Says DENR Has Authority Over Asbestos Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dept. Concerned About Asbestos in Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Effingham Firefighter Fighting Cancer Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Doubles Asbestos Removal Spending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boiler Operator Sued Asbestos Maker for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Historic Crounse House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Man Sues Employer for Asbestos Exposure


                            *********


1220 COLLINS: Faces "Conner" Suit in Eastern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1220 Collins
Avenue, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. 1220 Collins Avenue, Inc. doing business as: The
Webster, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00032 (E.D. N.Y., January
3, 2018).

The Defendant is a luxury multi-brand fashion house operating
five physical boutiques in the U.S. and an online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ABACUS BUSINESS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABACUS BUSINESS CORPORATION
GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321271 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover full restitution for unpaid meal
and rest period premium wages and business expenses pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in
unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as proscribed
by California Business and Professions Code, including depriving
Plaintiff and other members of the Class the minimum working
condition standards and conditions due to them under the
California laws.

Abacus Business is in the Medical Laboratories business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          4 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          8 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AETNA INC: Court Denies Move for Leave to File Late Jury Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Late Jury Demand in the case captioned JAY MINERLEY, individually
and as class representative, Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., AETNA
HEALTH, INC., AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
CO., and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-1377
(NLH/KMW) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff filed his original putative class action complaint in
New Jersey state court.  The state court complaint undisputedly
contained a jury demand.  The state court complaint asserted 33
counts, all asserting state law causes of action.

Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal
question jurisdiction on the basis of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 complete pre-emption, as well as
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand. Prior to the Court's ruling,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, mooting the asserted basis
for the motion to remand. Plaintiff withdrew the motion. The
first amended complaint was substantially similar to the original
complaint, also asserting thirty-three state law claims and
containing a jury demand.

Rule 39(b) governs when a proper jury demand under Rule 38 has
not been made. It provides: Issues on which a jury trial is not
properly demanded are to be tried by the court. But the court
may, on motion, order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury
might have been demanded. Under this rule, a district court may
still grant a jury trial, even where the demand was untimely
made.

The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that Great-West Life &
Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) is
controlling here.  In Knudson, petitioners seek, in essence, to
impose personal liability on respondents for a contractual
obligation to pay money relief that was not typically available
in equity. A claim for money due and owing under a contract is
'quintessentially an action at law.' Almost invariably suits
seeking (whether by judgment, injunction, or declaration) to
compel the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff are
suits for money damages,' as that phrase has traditionally been
applied, since they seek no more than compensation for loss
resulting from the defendant's breach of legal duty. And money
damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief.

Knudson was not a case about the right to a jury trial; the
Supreme Court did not address this issue. The court found Knudson
was not analyzing a right to a jury trial or even a claim for
benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B); it was analyzing whether a
claim was appropriate under Section 502(a)(3). Further, Third
Circuit district courts continue to apply Pane and its
predecessors post-Knudson.

Accordingly, the Court does not find this case suitable for a
jury trial. Further, even where a case may be tried before a
jury, this does not necessarily mean the circumstances of the
case are 'particularly suited to a jury.  Plaintiff's motion and
will not order a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 39(b).

A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 11, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6u24ghs from
Leagle.com.

JAY MINERLY, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER
-- info@kannebeckerlaw.com -- JAY MINERLY, Plaintiff, represented
by RYAN N. BOLAND -- rboland@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN,
P.A. & JOSEPH M. ARMSTRONG -- jarmstrong@offitkurman.com -- Offit
Kurman, P.A..

AETNA, INC., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY MICHAEL CHRISTINA
-- achristina@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST.
PHILLIP JR. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. &
URIEL RABINOVITZ -- rabinovitz@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC.
AETNA HEALTH, INC., A NJ CORP., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP,
JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG,
PC.

AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP,
JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG,
PC.

THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP,
JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG,
PC.

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
MICHAEL CHRISTINA, LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C., PETER D. ST. PHILLIP,
JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG,
PC.


ALLIANCE GROUND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haurat Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER HAURAT, individuallly and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE GROUND
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC688614 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and
overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of providing airline cargo
handling services. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged
in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Orders
all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages; failed to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failed to
authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in
lieu thereof; failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and failed to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kasmf Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Amaral Chiropractic Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amaral Chiropractic Center, P.A.
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other,
Valerie Coombs and Jennifer Smith, the Plaintiffs, v. Allstate
Insurance Company and Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance
Company, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-021218, was removed
from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft Lauderdale) on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-62570-FAM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

The Allstate Corporation is the second largest personal lines
insurer in the United States and the largest that is publicly
held. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in
Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.
          KOPELMAN & BLANKMAN PA
          Amaral Chiropractic Center, P.A.
          200 SW 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462 6855
          Facsimile: (954) 4626899
          E-mail: lmk@kopelblank.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gladys Perez, Esq.
          Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347 7307
          Facsimile: (305) 347 7827
          E-mail: gperez@shutts.com
                  rlamontagne@shutts.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Averts Class Action Over New-Hire Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that American
Airlines on Dec. 18 dodged a proposed class action brought by one
of its employees over the cancellation of a set of benefits
offered to new hires, after an Illinois federal judge said the
dispute had to be handled under the employees' collective
bargaining agreement.

The case is Ballard v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
02534, (N. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Honorable John
Robert Blakey.  The case was filed April 3, 2017. [GN]


AMERIGAS INC: DHHR Gets $250,000 from Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Holdren, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that the
Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) has announced a
supplemental propane payment is available to assist eligible
residents with heating expenses for the 2017-18 winter season.

"DHHR is pleased to provide special propane heating assistance to
approximately 3,500 eligible families," said DHHR Cabinet
Secretary Bill J. Crouch.  "The payments resulting from this
donation will help many households offset rising heating expenses
this winter."

Residents who receive propane for heating and who applied for and
received a regular Low Income Energy Assistance Program payment
this past winter will receive an automatic $71 payment to assist
with propane heating expenses.  All payments are expected to be
issued by the end of December.

The payments were made possible by a $250,000 donation resulting
from a class action settlement in the Swiger v. AmeriGas case,
which was approved by Judge Robert B. Stone of the Monongalia
County Circuit Court.

The donation was facilitated by attorneys David J. Romano of
Romano Law Office, Clarksburg; Meghan M. Cloud of McGuireWoods,
LLP, Charlottesville, Va.; and Edgar C. Gentle III, court-
appointed claims administrator, Hoover, Ala. [GN]


ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID A. WALKER JR., and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s), v. ANNELLIE'S CAR WASH LLC and RENE L. MORENO,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-62572-WPD (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and all individuals
similarly situated were not paid minimum wages at the Federal
minimum wage rate of $7.25 as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Defendant failed to keep accurate records and to
track hours worked, tips received, in order to make sure that
Plaintiff's piece rate, plus tips received were enough to meet at
least the mandatory Federal minimum of $7.25.

The complaint says Plaintiff worked for Defendant from Friday to
Sunday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (10 hours each day). The
Plaintiff was unable to take any bona fide lunch, and he worked a
total of 30 hours every week. The Plaintiff and all individuals
similarly situated, did not punch in and out, but they were
forced to maintain the regular schedule. This schedule was
strictly enforced by Defendants, and Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals were sanctioned with suspensions,
and they were threatened with termination, if they did not comply
with the established schedule.

The Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated were paid a
piece-rate of $3.00 per car. Usually, Plaintiff was paid an
average of $60.00 weekly. Additionally, Plaintiff received tips
for an average of $20.00 weekly, which totaled $80.00 per week.
This means that Plaintiff was paid an average of $2.66 and an
hour, not even the Federal minimum wage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Brand and Hosking Sue over Old Phones' Performance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brand, and Matt Hosking, Individually And On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03453-RMG (D. S.C., Dec. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover actual, consequential, treble and exemplary
damages as a result of Apple's deliberate limitation of the
performance of older iPhone models to coincide with the release
of newer models in an attempt to get users to purchase newer
devices.

The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated owners of Apple's iPhone 6, 6S and SE
and iPhone 7, and prior models which similar prior
undisclosed/concealed conduct by Apple similarly degraded
performance.

According to the complaint, in December 2017, independent
researchers identified computer code in the October 2017, Apple
software update that intentionally slowed down the operation of
the phone. Apple has admitted to deliberately adding code as a
"feature" that limits the performance of older devices that would
cause them to turn off suddenly. Apple claims the new software
updates for the older phones are designed to "smooth out" peak
power demands and prevent surprise shutdowns. Apple's admission
applies to prior software updates, not only the 2017 update(s).

These software updates that slow down the older phones coincide
with the release of newer iPhone models, causing users to believe
their phone is failing and that they need to purchase a new
device. In reality, the problem could be resolved by replacing
just the battery, a far less expensive option than upgrading to
the next phone model, a fact which is unknown to many iPhone
users.

As a result of Apple's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners of the iPhones -- including Plaintiffs
-- have needlessly replaced their older phones for newer, more
pricey models.  According to the lawsuit, Apple wishes to dictate
to its consumers: Upgrade again or face the difficulties involved
in changed to a different platform (i.e. android, etc.).

Apple sold and distributed iPhones and iOS software nationwide
through its stores and through third-party vendors, such as
Verizon, AT&T, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW PRACTICE, LLC
          2000 Sam Rittenberg Blvd. Ste. 2011
          Charleston, SC 29407
          Telephone: (843) 225 7240
          Facsimile: (888) 446 3963
          E-mail: aaron@mayerlawpractice.com


APPLE INC: Musician Sues Over Third Party Licensing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wuerthele, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a
musician apparently disgruntled at how Beats Music and Apple
Music has handled its streaming obligations is looking to fire up
a class action suit, and is accusing Apple of intentionally
deleting records and under-counting downloads and streams in
order to pay artists less or not at all.

Musician Bryan Eich owns the publishing rights to two albums,
spanning 18 tracks.  According to Mr. Eich's court filing, Apple
never served a notice of intent to obtain compulsory licenses
within one month of making available the two album.

Mr. Eich claims that Apple "engaged in a systematic process of
infringement" by not sending the notice of intent, deliberately
deleting stream information, altering the streaming reports, and
failing to properly report to him, and presumably others, to
"conceal the infringements."

The issue appears to be a disconnect of some sort between third-
party aggregators and the musicians.  Mr. Eich is seeking class
members who own the publishing rights to recordings, and
submitted the recordings to Beats and now Apple through the
aggregators.

In this case, music clearing house CD Baby appears to be where
the breakdown somehow occurred.  The suit filing claims that when
Beats Music went live in 2012, CD Baby submitted most of its
catalog, including Mr. Eich's recordings, for review.  Mr. Eich
claims that he was unaware at the time that his recordings were
submitted for review.

If there was any error with how Beats Music handled the notice of
intent, it is now an error carried forward to Apple Music.
According to the filing, Beats did not serve notices of intent on
independent artists "as a matter of corporate policy" and Apple
was aware of that.  Mr. Eich notes an active lawsuit on Aug. 1,
2014 when the purchase was made over the same matter.

Mr. Eich claims that Apple's counsel was informed of the possibly
ongoing issue on August 11, with an undated second attempt at
contact.  Apple's non-response is being interpreted by Mr. Eich
as "intentional conduct" subjecting Apple to "enhanced statutory
damages."

The filing also claims that the streaming royalties for
recordings owned by Mr. Eich and some of the named plaintiffs for
the suit are "$0.000000."  As such, Mr. Eich believes that Apple
"has failed to include, and/or changed the revenue owed for
streams."

The lawsuit has certificate of registration for the pairs of
albums, but no copies of reports from Apple.  It is unclear from
the court filing how many times that Mr. Eich's tracks were
streamed from Beats Music or Apple Music, or if they were
streamed at all.

The suit was electronically filed on Dec. 17.  A search on Apple
Music on Dec. 17 did not reveal the artist's albums. [GN]


ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Centino Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CENTINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD PRODUCTS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING
COMPANY LLC, a Delaware company; and DOES 1 through 25, the
Defendant, Case No. BC688661 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
adopted and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures
governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to,
Plaintiff and the rest of the Class. The Defendants have uniform
policies, practices and procedures violated California's labor
laws and constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business
practices under Business & Professions Code.

Arrowhead designs, analyzes, manufactures, and tests composite
and metallic ducting systems, and components for aircraft,
defense, and space markets. It offers metallic bellows and
joints, bleed air ducting, elastomeric components, composites,
thermal insulation, and space vehicle propulsion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213)542-2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com
                  rgundzik@gghslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5723 Melrose Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP
          5723 Melrose Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7050
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com


ARSTRAT LLC: Silber Sues over Debt Collections Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Shlomo Silber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARSTRAT, LLC and John Does l-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07569 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2017),
seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.  According
to the complaint, the Defendant failed to name the creditor to
whom the debt is owed.

Arstrat, LLC is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501


AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Service Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that with the
onslaught against class actions in 2017, the plaintiffs in a case
over AT&T's "unlimited" service plans challenged the arbitration
of their consumer fraud allegations by claiming that the Federal
Arbitration Act was unconstitutional.  Why? Because it violated
their First Amendment right to petition the government.

AT&T turned to Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus for the appeal.  In
the end, the 9th Circuit found the plaintiffs couldn't even prove
AT&T was a "state actor" -- a necessary requirement to assert
constitutional violations. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Forest Hill Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steff Wills, writing for Daily Advertiser, reports that class
action could be on the cards for Forest Hill residents against
the environmental PFAS contamination.

It follows the discovery of the fire-fighting foam, containing
per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances -- PFAS -- in areas outside
military bases, including RAAF Base Wagga.

Forest Hill residents were in 2016 reassured preliminary testing
had returned results in very low concentrations, but it prompted
further investigation.

With January's results only weeks away, according to the
Department of Defence, Shine Lawyers special counsel Joshua
Aylward said answers could send shock waves through communities.

The Australian Defence Force and other agencies used the foam
between the 1970s and mid-2000s.

The chemicals can remain in the body and environment for years,
transferring through the placenta and moving through the soil to
contaminate surface and ground water.

While the Department of Health maintains the full extent of its
effects are unknown, it has been referred to as "the new
asbestos", according to an ABC report, and has proven toxic to
fish and some animals.

Mr Aylward said the region was still in the dark about the issue.
He said a number of Wagga residents had contacted him after
communication from Defence "seemed to contradict what they found
online".

He said he welcomed further inquiries.

Mr Aylward said the assumption PFAS only passed through ground
water was "a myth", with residents adopting a naive "she'll be
right" attitude.

"It's a bigger deal than people realise," Mr Aylward said.
"There are 49 PFAS pathways that are being tested . . . it's
being tested in people, soil and food . . . it's a concern
everywhere."

He said the "plume" would continue to expand by up to 50 per cent
in 100 years "even if it could be stopped".

"The area of spread will go well beyond Forest Hill, even with
Defence's best efforts to stop it," Mr Aylward said.

A community information session will be held at Forest Hill in
March this year to reveal the findings.

Until then, Brunslea Park Estate manager Sam Brunskill said she
was waiting for the official results, before jumping to
conclusions.

"From the discussions we have had with the defence
representatives, we believe it is of low impact to the community
at this stage," Ms Brunskill said.  "We will wait and see." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers to Pursue PFAS Contamination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McLennan, writing for Katherine Times, reports that a
Victorian law firm is going ahead with legal action over PFAS
contamination in Katherine.

Maddens Lawyers on Dec. 18 said it received interest from
residents to take action against the Department of Defence "case
by case".

Shine Lawyers has already signed up hundreds of residents
planning to take part in a class action against the department.

PFAS chemicals contained in firefighting foams have been shown to
have leaked from the Tindal RAAF Base and directly underneath
Katherine.

Residents claim their property values have plummeted as a result.

They also fear the impact on their health from long-term exposure
to the chemicals.

"Following ongoing investigations and consideration of the
circumstances of the PFAS contamination in Katherine, Maddens
Lawyers will progress claims for compensation against the
Department of Defence on a case by case basis," the firm said on
Dec. 18.

Maddens commercial litigation principal, Brendan Pendergast --
bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au -- said the impact of the PFAS
contamination in Katherine has been varied.

"The consequences of PFAS contamination differ between businesses
and individuals depending upon the way in which the land is
used," Mr Pendergast said.

"Residents who have registered with Maddens are reporting a
diverse range of concerns.

"Progressing claims on an individual basis will ensure that each
claim for compensation is comprehensive and constructed to each
individual's particular loss and damage."

Maddens Lawyers will advance claims against the department on a
'no win, no fee' basis,' and said it would "work with clients to
ensure that claims for compensation incorporate all legal
entitlements".

"Often people are unaware of the full extent of their claim until
they discuss their circumstances with us," Mr Pendergast said.

Maddens Lawyers says it is "well placed" to progress claims on an
individual basis against the Department having undertaken a
similar process on behalf of property owners impacted by the 2013
Lithgow bushfire in NSW.

"Maddens Lawyers understand the department is prepared to
consider individual claims for compensation arising from the
activities at the RAAF base."

Mr Pendergast believes there are benefits of progressing claims
on an individual basis in this instance including the provision
of targeted advice and the likelihood of achieving a timely
outcome for those persons whose properties have been directly
affected.

"These individuals will have the opportunity to have their claims
dealt with efficiently and without the potential delays
associated with a class action, which might include more remote
and difficult claims.

"In the event that claims are resolved as proposed, any
settlement would also require the department to make provision
for the individual claimants' legal costs," Mr Pendergast said.

Maddens are focusing on compensation claims on behalf of those
whose primary water supply is from a private bore or ground
water.

"We are aware of many smaller landholdings and dwellings located
outside the township of Katherine and close to the air force base
which have been significantly and directly impacted.

"In those instances, we believe an individual case by case
approach is likely to be a quicker process and more likely to
lead to recovery of all compensable losses for each individual,"
Mr Pendergast said.

To enquire about progressing a claim for compensation phone
Maddens Lawyers on 1800 815 228 or email
katherine@maddenslawyers.com.au [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Walls, writing for NT News, reports that thousands of
indigenous Territorians could be in line to share in millions of
dollars in back pay if an upcoming class action to secure redress
for unpaid wages is successful.

Shine Lawyers is preparing to begin proceedings in the Federal
Court in February, seeking recompense for Aboriginal workers
whose wages were withheld by their employer or garnisheed by the
government as recently as the 1970s.

National special council for the class action Jan Saddler said
individual workers were potentially owed as much as $100,000
each, with more than 2200 indigenous Territorians who may have
worked during the relevant period still alive today.

"It really is a very difficult matter to identify, but we're
talking certainly for individual clients, potentially well into
the tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps even in excess of
$100,000," she said.

Ms Saddler said the affected workers, who would now be aged in
their late 60s or older, would sometimes receive food, shelter
and "pocket money" for their services but the rest of their wage
was held "on trust" by the Government and never paid back to
them.

"They worked hard and they worked incredibly long hours, they
usually worked six days a week, they might have got one day off a
week if they were lucky, and they didn't receive their wages,"
she said.

"There are occasions where people have said to us that they
recall requesting their wages and they were told that they
weren't payable to them.

"It's a pretty sad state of affairs frankly for these people who
worked hard, wanted to provide for themselves and their families
and they simply weren't able to access those moneys when they'd
worked so hard."

Ms Saddler said while the practice had ceased some decades ago,
the impact on the workers and their families was ongoing.

"I think about the significant impact that this has had from a
historic perspective and the intergenerational effects," she
said.  "Being able to provide for your family and being able to
create a sound financial basis upon which your family can grow
and be educated and do all of those things that families do go on
holidays all that sort of thing is very challenging when your
wages are being retained by someone else."

Ms Saddler said her team had already visited communities
throughout the Territory and encouraged anyone else who may have
been affected to come forward.

People seeking more information about joining the class action
should call Shine Lawyers on 1800 751 969. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Education Dept. Sued Over Toxic Waratah Gasworks Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for The Newcastle Herald, reports that a
cocktail of dangerous substances has been found in the soil of
some properties above the old gasworks at Waratah, including
cyanide, lead and known carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene

And at least one house has been shifting on its foundations, as
an old gas holder underneath it swells and shrinks in periods of
wet and dry weather respectively.

The Newcastle Herald can reveal that Newcastle council's 11-month
environmental investigation into the site is now complete, with a
report based on the findings in the final stages of an
"independent, comprehensive review".

It is expected to be released in coming weeks.

It's understood the area bounded by Turton, Georgetown and Ellis
Roads -- which takes in about 20 properties -- has been divided
into a pink zone and a blue zone depending on the level of risk.

While the council is yet to make a financial commitment towards
remediation, chief executive Jeremy Bath said it had met with
residents to provide sampling results and discuss "the next
steps".

"A key recommendation of the investigation was to undertake a
Remediation Options Assessment for properties with elevated
results," Mr Bath said.

"In November 2017, Council met with those property owners
individually to discuss possible remediation options and
management measures that may be appropriate for their specific
properties."

In the meantime, those residents have been assured they can
minimise risk by avoiding direct contact with shallow soil, which
they have been told is the main exposure pathway to the toxic
substances.

But that advice stands in contrast to events 212 kilometres away
in Camden, NSW, where a nearly identical situation has unfolded.

Camden High School was built in 1956 beside a former gasworks and
was later expanded on top of the site.

The school was razed in 2017, but more than 320 former students
and teachers have launched a class action against the Department
of Education, claiming they have illnesses linked to toxins at
the site.

Joe Bonura, a partner at Marsdens Law Group, is acting on behalf
of the group. He said direct contact with soil and breathing in
vapours were both considered avenues of exposure.

"We are still in the process of attaining expert evidence," he
said. "We have had a fairly large number of people that have made
complaints about the smells."

Professor Megh Mallavarapu leads the remediation program at the
University of Newcastle's Cooperative Research Centre for
Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment.

He said because the gasworks at Waratah was decommissioned in the
1920s, the airborne risk would have lessened over time.

"Most of the highly volatile compounds have already been lost to
the atmosphere," he said.

But he expressed concern about residents still living on top of
or adjacent to the site.

"It is not advisable to live next to that," he said.

More than 300 soil, vapour and groundwater samples were collected
by an independent consultant as part of council's investigation.

Cyanide, lead, chromium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
and benzo(a)pyrene were found above the screening criteria in the
yard of Kim and Adam Lowe's home on Turton Road.

Lead exposure can impair intellectual development in children,
while benzo(a)pyrene has been classified as a group one
carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The couple raised their children at the property, who used to
carve out race tracks for their cars in the dirt. Mr Lowe praised
council's handling of the problem so far.

"We feel they've been very up front and honest," he said.

"Council have acknowledged the problem is there . . . and they're
providing potential remediation options.

"[But] the proof is going to be in the pudding of whether they
deliver those remediation outcomes that have been requested. That
is the crunch part for them."

The Lowes' situation is complicated by an abandoned gas holder,
estimated at around 18 metres in length, that sits underneath
their house and backyard.

It's been blamed for cracks in their fences, a leaning side wall
and brickwork pulling away at the base of the house.

Mr Lowe compared it to a large bowl, filled with dirt and clay.

"When it fills up with water . . . everything in the tank becomes
soft.  Then the structure dries out and hardens.  That causes the
structural damage we have now.

"You can repair the structural damage now, but in 20 years you'll
have more structural damage because the problem isn't solved."

Mr Lowe and his wife have been living at their property for over
two decades and do not wish to move away.  But any solution, they
argued, had to solve the problem "once and for all".

"We'd hate to think there'd be more deterioration in the house in
years to come," Mr Lowe said.

The Lowes unwittingly stumbled across the suburb's toxic secret
when they were installing a pool in 2002, and a crowbar vanished
down a hole in their yard.

But it was only in June 2017 the family came to understand the
hole was a gas holder belonging to the former Waratah gasworks,
after a member of the public alerted the NSW Environment
Protection Authority to its existence.

Newcastle Council has claimed it did not know about the gasworks,
which closed in 1928, because any records from the now-defunct
Waratah Municipal Council were destroyed.

But the identity of the person that alerted authorities to its
existence has been the subject of great conjecture among
residents.

"There's still unanswered questions," Mr Lowe said.

All clear outside former footprint
An investigation has given a clean bill of health to properties
outside the footprint of the former gasworks at Waratah.

Elevated levels of contaminants were discovered in an area
consistent with "where the former gasworks structure is
understood to be," council said in a statement.

Properties beyond that -- including the Family Support Centre and
Callaghan College -- were found to be typical of background
conditions within Waratah.

"Further investigation or remediation is not required ... as
gasworks indicator substances were typically absent," the
statement said.

According to residents, 13 properties have been included in the
'pink zone', because of the risk from direct contact with
elevated levels of contaminants in the shallow soil.

They have been asked to consider partial remediation -- where
soil is capped with pavers or concrete -- or full remediation,
where it is replaced with clean fill.

"Council is committed to working closely with affected property
owners," chief executive Jeremy Bath said.

As part of the investigation, samples were collected up to 500
metres from the gasworks site.

This was done in order to "characterise typical background
substances that may be present from man-made sources other than
the former gasworks", the statement said.

"Council is liaising with the NSW EPA and Hunter New England
Health, and will continue to seek their advice to ensure any
health and environmental concerns are addressed." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: "Farrell" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order Conditionally Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned JOANNE
FARRELL, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

This case comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff,
Joanne Farrell, and putative plaintiffs, Ronald Dinkins, Larice
Addamo, and Tia Little, on behalf of themselves and the
Settlement Class they seek to represent, for an order granting
Preliminary Approval of the class action Settlement between
Plaintiffs and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA).

The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
the following Settlement Class:

     All holders of BANA consumer checking accounts who, during
the period between February 25, 2014 and December 30, 2017, were
assessed at least one Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge that was
not refunded.

The Court designates Joanne Farrell, Ronald Dinkins, Larice
Addamo, and Tia Little as the Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class.

The Court designates Epiq Systems as Administrator.

The Court appoints Jeffrey Kaliel, Jeff Ostrow, Bryan Gowdy, and
Christina M. Pierson as Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dl3dnm from Leagle.com.

Joanne Farrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Gowdy --
bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed and Gowdy, P.A., pro hac vice.

Joanne Farrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cristina Maria Pierson --
cmp@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, Hassan Ali
Zavareei, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, 1828 L St NW #1000, Washington,
DC 20036, USA, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com --
Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com  --
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, John
Russell Hargrove -- jrh@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac
vice, John Joseph Uustal -- jju@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC,
pro hac vice, Robert C. Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice &
Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boyle -
- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle N. Oakley --
doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jonathan Hacker --
jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew
William Close -- mclose@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers.


BAZAARVOICE INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC., GENE
AUSTIN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, KRISTA BERRY, STEVE H. BERKOWITZ,
JEFFREY HAWN, THOMAS J. MEREDITH, ALLISON WING, BV PARENT, LLC,
BV MERGER SUB, INC., and MARLIN EQUITY PARTNERS, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01212 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction;, and in the event defendants consummate the proposed
transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
November 27, 2017, pursuant to which Bazaarvoice, Inc. will be
acquired by Marlin Equity Partners, BV Parent, LLC, and BV Merger
Sub, Inc. and together with Parent and Marlin Equity.

On November 26, 2017, Bazaarvoice's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Marlin. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of Bazaarvoice will receive $5.50 in cash for each
share of Bazaarvoice stock they own. On December 15, 2017,
defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Bazaarvoice connects brands, retailers and consumers in the
world's largest shopper network, delivering ROI through reviews,
analytics and targeted media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS PAGAN, and other similarly situated non-exempt employees,
the Plaintiff, v. BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company and HARRY BOOKEY, Individually, the Defendants,
Case No. CACE-17-023527 (in the Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial District,
in and for Broward County, Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys; fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from January 2004 through October 28, 2017, as a non-
exempt laborer. The Plaintiff and Defendants were engaged in an
implied agreement whereby Plaintiff would be employed by
Defendants and that Plaintiff would be properly paid as provided
for by, and not in violation of, the laws of the United States
and the State of Florida.

During Plaintiffs employment, Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff the required overtime and/or minimum wages at a rate of
one and a half times Plaintiffs regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a single work week.

The Defendants had or should have had full knowledge of all hours
worked by Plaintiff, including those hours worked by Plaintiff in
excess of 40 in a given week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG PHARMA: City of Palmetto Joins Suit Over Opioid Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Young, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that Palmetto
joined municipalities across the state, and country, in
potentially filing a lawsuit against big pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors for their alleged role in the
current opioid epidemic that has killed an estimated 200,000
Americans in the past few years.

The city took action on Dec. 18 to authorize city attorney Mark
Barnebey to retain an outside legal team to review the financial
impacts to the city that the crisis has caused.  Among some
potential costs associated with the epidemic are for the purchase
of narcan, the counteractive drug that stops an overdose, as well
as personnel, treatment and litigation.

"It's come to our attention that a number of jurisdictions are
investigating and pursuing possible claims that are
pharmaceutical related due to possible deceptive sales and
marketing procedures," Mr. Barnebey said.

Mr. Barnebey said there are several firms now specializing in
taking action against the pharmaceutical companies and it would
be a contingency-based hire, meaning it won't cost the city any
money for the legal team to review the city's case and
potentially file the lawsuit.  Legal professionals have compared
it to the class action lawsuit filed by the Gulf of Mexico states
against British Petroleum after the Deepwater Horizon
environmental disaster.

Mr. Barnebey said there are some similarities, but it's not a
class action suit and all of the municipalities are essentially
going at it on their own.

"But if you get enough people that are filing a similar case, the
courts will typically prefer a class action suit," he said.  "We
aren't there yet, but I can see it getting to that point."

Delray Beach became the first city to file a suit in July, and
Manatee County had a similar discussion in early November.  The
county is considering one of two law firms, and a proposal to
move forward is expected by late January.

While it has been an unofficial accusation for years, so-called
"Big Pharm" is being called out for the aftermath of the "Pill
Mill" ordeal when powerful and addictive narcotics were being
over prescribed, addicting millions of Americans.  When states
like Florida cracked down on the pill mills, it left those
relying on the medications to find alternative means to feed
their addiction.  In Delray Beach's case, the city's third-party
legal team accuses pharmaceutical distributors and manufacturers
of engaging in deceptive marketing and that they violated the
Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act by overselling
opioids to doctors while minimizing the threat of addiction.

In 2015, Manatee County had Florida's highest per capita rate of
overdose fatalities related to morphine, fentanyl and cocaine.
One year later, the county would be labeled the overdose capital
of the country, and while 2017 has seen ebbs and flows in
overdoses, the crisis remains in full swing.  Mayor Shirley
Groover Bryant said the legal team must take into consideration
those future numbers and not just settle on the past and present
figures.

"This has the potential to be very costly in the long term at the
rate this continues to escalate," Mr. Bryant said.  "It's very
unfair to our citizens who will be burdened with those costs."

Pharmaceutical companies also are being accused of failing to
alert the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency for suspicious opioid
purchases, such as orders of unusual size and frequency.
Allegations typically state that the manufacturers exaggerated
the benefits of the medications, knew they were being over
prescribed and yet failed to warn doctors of the extremely
addictive nature of the narcotics.  Other lawsuits also state
that pharmaceutical companies lobbied politicians and doctors in
an effort to artificially increase the use of these same opioids.
[GN]


BIG PHARMA: Decatur, Limestone County to Launch Opioid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marian Accardi, writing for Decatur Daily, reports that the city
of Decatur and Limestone County Commission are joining a growing
number of local governments suing drug manufacturers and
wholesale distributors over the opioid addiction crisis.

A unanimous Decatur City Council voted on Dec. 18 to hire the
Pensacola, Florida, law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor PA, to represent it in a lawsuit
against opioid distributors.  Decatur attorney Greg Reeves
requested the council action.

"If we don't get in, Decatur would just be out in the cold if
there's a settlement or a decision," Council President
Paige Bibbee said.

The Limestone County Commission voted 4-0 on Dec. 18 to retain
Athens attorney John Plunk and Hodges Trial Lawyers P.C. in
Huntsville to represent the county in a lawsuit seeking all civil
remedies against companies in the chain of distribution of
prescription opiates responsible for the opioid epidemic.

"We don't know if we'll get anything out of this," County
Commission Chairman Mark Yarbrough said, "but maybe it'll work as
a deterrent."  Mr. Yarbrough said there are no up-front costs to
the county.

According to a legal services agreement approved by the
commission, the litigation will focus on manufacturers and
wholesale distributors and their role in diverting "millions of
prescription opiates into the illicit market which has resulted
in opioid addiction, abuse, morbidity and mortality."

The agreement doesn't name the companies that will be sued.

"Initially, we'll file a lawsuit on behalf of our clients," said
Mr. Plunk, who's a member of the Alabama Ethics Commission.
"It'll be filed in U.S. District Court in Huntsville.  We plan on
filing within a week."

Mr. Plunk said class-action status would be determined by the
federal judges who end up handling the cases.

"The courts, in order to have efficient management of numerous
cases with common claims and common damages, will grant class-
action status," Mr. Plunk said.

The services of other attorneys and firms may be retained to
pursue the case, the legal services agreement states.

Limestone County and Decatur will pay 30 percent of the total
recovery as an attorney fee whether the lawsuit is resolved by
compromise, settlement or trial and verdict.  The fee will be
calculated on the amount obtained before costs and expenses are
deducted, according to the agreement.

If a court awards attorneys' fees, the attorneys will receive 30
percent or the fees awarded, whichever is greater.  There is no
fee if there is no recovery, according to the agreement.

Litigation expenses will be deducted from any recovery after the
contingency fee is calculated, the agreement states, and there is
no reimbursement of litigation expenses if there is no recovery.

The Morgan County Commission agreed in November, in a unanimous
vote, to authorize Commission Chairman Ray Long to enter the
county into a contract with the Levin Papantonio law firm and
Reeves.

County Attorney David Langston will assist in representing the
commission in the planned federal lawsuit against Cardinal Health
Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. and McKesson Corp.

Mr. Reeves said in November the county would be represented by
the same consortium of eight law firms, including Mr. Levin, that
are representing the city of Birmingham in its suit against the
three drug distributors.

"If could be years before there's any resolution," Mr. Reeves
said on Dec. 18 at the Decatur council meeting.

The Lawrence County Commission also agreed to hire Levin
Papantonio and Reeves to represent the county in a class-action
opioid lawsuit against drugmakers. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Phenix City Mulls Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
LaPorsche Thomas and Justin Holbrock, writing for WRBL, report
that one Alabama city is attempting to take action against the
opioid crisis.

The Phenix City City Council approved a resolution to file a
class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors of opioids.

Two counselors and Mayor Eddie Lowe voted to approve the
resolution.  One of the counselors was out sick and the district
two seat is empty.  The special election fill the seat was set to
takes place Tuesday, Dec. 19.

In 2015, Alabama prescribed more opioids than any other state in
the country, according to the CDC.

With the vote, Phenix City is joining the fight against opioids,
which one local man knows all too well.

"Things are great now but it was very challenging coming out of
it at the time," recovering opioid addict John Burdeshaw said.

For 20 years, Mr. Burdeshaw struggled with addiction including
heroin, meth and whatever pills he could get.  He's in his third
year of recovery, which seemed impossible during the darkest days
of his addiction.

"Eventually I lost everything and battled homelessness and deep
addiction and went to rehab," he said.  "It's been a long road
but it's been well worth it."

Mr. Burdeshaw met his wife Christi in rehab while she was
fighting addiction as well.  The couple first spoke with News 3
in November for a special report on the opioid crisis.

"My family was devastated," Christi Burdeshaw said.  "The
different times they had to come to court hearings and I was in
shackles and a jumpsuit, and I think though that they almost felt
better when I was in jail because at least they knew I wasn't
going to die."

News 3 followed up with John on Dec. 18 after Phenix City passed
the resolution.

"I would like to encourage other cities to get on board and get
ahead of it," John Burdeshaw said.  "Be proactive and help slow
things down before they get started."

Phenix City Mayor Eddie Lowe agrees.

"You know the number one thing of any council of any leaders of
the city is safety and the well being of others," Mayor Lowe
said.  "That's part of the reason why we've decided to do that
resolution and sign off on it." [GN]


CALIFORNIA CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Bulosan Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH BULOSAN and APRIL BULOSAN, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA CONNECTION, LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No.
17CIV05935 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and interest, penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, declaratory relief, and civil penalties
and attorneys' fees under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on
behalf of other similarly situated employees who worked for
Defendant and who were not correctly paid their wages while
working for Defendant, given inaccurate wage statements and not
provided meal and rest periods as allowed by law.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees also seek
recovery of penalties as a result of Defendant's failure to fully
indemnify them for expenses undertaken while doing business for
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLE/GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Vilage, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Santosh Narayan, Esq.
          NARAYAN LAW, APC
          225 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 300
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 432 5435
          Facsimile: (626) 657 2921
          E-mail: snarayan@narayanlegal.com


CANADA: Class Actions Means of Justice for Sexual Abuse Survivors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ptak, Esq. -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- and Garth Myers, Esq. --
gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- of at Koskie Minsky LLP, in response to the
opinion piece published at Toronto Star, entitled "Class action
lawsuits not always best in historical sexual abuse cases," the
author unfairly criticized the role of class actions in achieving
access to justice for vulnerable victims of historical sexual
abuse.

Class actions arising from historical sexual abuse have the
ability to overcome psychological, social and economic barriers
presented by individual lawsuits and indeed, are repeatedly
endorsed by courts across Canada as providing meaningful access
to justice and fair settlements for large groups of people.

Many survivors of abuse are elderly or in a frail emotional
state.  Others may not be able to devote the time and expense
required to seek individual relief in the legal system, or may
not even be aware that they could file a claim.  Filing an
individual lawsuit requires the survivor to publicly disclose
details of their abuse and may require them to be cross-examined
in court.

These psychological, social, and economic barriers may make it
difficult or impossible for many survivors to come forward and
commence lawsuits for historic sexual abuse.

Class actions are an important means of access to justice for
survivors of abuse.  Class actions are commenced by one
individual who represents an entire group of survivors.  This
representative plaintiff becomes the face of the class action,
who conducts the litigation on behalf of a whole group of
survivors.  This representative plaintiff becomes the face of the
class action, and other class members may anonymously shelter
under the representative plaintiff's umbrella.  Only if the class
action is successful must class members come forward and submit
claims.

Finally, a class action settlement are scrutinized by judges to
ensure that they are fair, failing which they will not be
approved.

Individual lawsuit settlements also often contain terms
preventing the parties from disclosing the settlement.  These
secret settlements have the effect of ensuring that other
survivors are not aware of the settlements and therefore, they do
not come forward.  In contrast, settlements in class actions
require robust notice to the class to encourage survivors to come
forward and submit claims.

Finally, while settlements in individual lawsuits are typically
limited to providing compensation to the individual, class
actions have the capacity to provide broad based healing and
reconciliation measures aimed at restorative justice.

Take for example the Indian Residential Schools settlement for
damages arising from historical abuse.  The number of eligible
class members who submitted claims was far in excess of what was
expected.  One of the reasons for this high take up was that the
application for the common experience payment component of the
settlement was streamlined, paper-based, and private, eliminating
many of the barriers faced by individual lawsuits.  In addition,
the settlement established the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to contribute to truth, healing and reconciliation
between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

The benefits of class actions have enabled thousands of survivors
to benefit who otherwise may never have come forward.  They are
an essential component of our justice system that provide access
to justice to vulnerable groups.

Jonathan Ptak and Garth Myers are lawyers at Koskie Minsky LLP
who represent abuse survivors as well as many other types of
groups in class actions against governments and corporations.
[GN]


CAPITALA FINANCE: Paskowitz Sues over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE PASKOWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITALA FINANCE CORP.,
JOSEPH B. ALALA III, and STEPHEN A. ARNALL, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-09251 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Capitala from January 4, 2016 through August
7, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class Period).

Capitala Finance Corp. is a business development company that
invests primarily in first and second liens, subordinated debt
and, to a lesser extent, equity securities issued by lower and
traditional middle-market companies.

According to the complaint, Capitala Investment manages the
Company's investment activities. The Company's Board of Directors
supervises the Company's investment activities. The Company's
executive officers are part of Capitala Investment Advisors'
management team.  Under the Company's investment advisory
agreement with Capitala Investment Advisors, the Company pays
Capitala Investment Advisors an annual base management fee based
on the Company's gross assets as well as an incentive fee based
on the Companys performance.

On January 4, 2016, the Company announced that Capitala
Investment Advisors agreed to voluntarily waive its quarterly
incentive fee. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent
in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving
of its incentive fee; (2) such loss of talent negatively impacted
the quality of the Company's investment portfolio; and (3) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 7, 2017, the Company revealed during aftermarket hours
that six of its investments were on non-accrual statu--twice as
many as it had the previous quarter. On August 8, 2017, Defendant
Alala revealed that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing
professional talent in underwriting and portfolio management
since waiving its incentive fee, which gave rise to a rising
number of nonaccrual investments. On this news, shares of the
Company fell $3.82 per share over the next three trading days or
approximately 30% to close at $8.99 per share on August 10, 2017,
damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARLESTON PLACE: "Knecht" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Knecht, On Behalf of Himself And Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Charleston Place LLC., and Charleston
Place Holdings Inc., DBA Charleston Grill by Belmond, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03460-PMD (D. S.C., Dec. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
numerous other employees to work on their behalf in providing
labor for their financial benefit. The Plaintiff has been
employed by Defendants as a server from October of 2012 until the
present. The Plaintiff has an employment agreement with
Defendants, whereby Plaintiff is paid an hourly rate plus tips
for all hours worked. The Defendants paid Mr. Knecht, as well as
other similarly situated servers, an hourly wage less than the
statutory minimum wage by taking the "Tip Credit" under the FLSA.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff $2.75 per hour. The Defendants
violated the tip credit notice requirement of 29 U.S.C. section
203(m), because they did not inform Plaintiff, as well as other
similarly situated servers, that they intend to treat tips
as satisfying part of their minimum wage obligation.

The Defendants also did not notify Plaintiff, as well as other
similarly situated servers, regarding the provisions of their tip
policy and the amount of the tip credit that it was taking. The
Defendants failed to inform the Plaintiff, as well as other
similarly situated servers, regarding the amount of tip pool
contributions they would be required to make either before or
after they were hired. The Defendants' have a mandatory policy
requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers, to
redistribute a portion of their tips at the end of each shift
into a mandatory tip pool.

Defendants own and operate the Charleston Grill by Belmond,
(Charleston Grill) an up-scale restaurant serving "award winning
Southern Cuisine".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 588 5587
          Facsimile: (800) 385 8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ash" as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order dismissing
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot in the case captioned LEAH
ASH, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW, INC.,
INFILAW HOLDING, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, No. 3:17CV39
(W.D.N.C.).

A discovery conference was held in this matter on December 6,
2017.  At the conference, the Court directed that the parties in
this action and the related actions to file a consolidated class
action complaint by mid-January.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss filed on December 4 is moot and is dismissed as
moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3uubvz from Leagle.com.

Leah Ash, Plaintiff, represented by Michael John Messinger, Law
Offices of Michael Messinger, PLLC, 6135 Park South Dr, Ste 510,
Charlotte, NC 28210-0100

Charlotte School of Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden
-- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Michael DeWayne Hays -- mhays@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert Cahill -- rcahill@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP & Johnny M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com -
- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.

InfiLaw Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Edward
Mills, Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Robert
Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP & Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP.


CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding No Role in Class Action Demise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Ordower and Lake Whillans, writing for Above the Law,
report that the closely watched case of Gbarabe v. Chevron -- a
class action against the oil giant based on an oil rig explosion
off the coast of Nigeria -- has been portrayed as a cautionary
tale for the world of litigation finance.  The defense attorneys'
dogged pursuit of the details of plaintiff's outside funding, the
story goes, succeeded, and aided in the attack on the adequacy of
plaintiff's counsel.  The defense did successfully defeat class
certification, but litigation funding ultimately played little or
no role in the case's demise.

The casual reader learning about Gbarabe might assume that
litigation finance arrangements are routinely disclosed or
discovered.  As discussed recently, there is currently no
automatic disclosure regime for litigation finance.  The
litigation finance arrangements in Gbarabe came to light only
because of the narrow circumstances presented there: the court
had to determine whether counsel could adequately represent the
class, counsel conceded litigation funding had relevance to that
inquiry, and counsel did not assert privilege over the funding
agreement.  Gbarabe is an outlier.  In nearly every case where
similar discovery has been sought, it has been denied.

Those courts faced with the disclosure issue have generally found
that a party's communications with actual or prospective funders
are shielded from production based on the work product doctrine,
which protects "documents and tangible things that are prepared
in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another
party or its representative (including the other party's
attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent)."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(a).  As explained in a recent case,
Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., the doctrine serves "to protect
an attorney's thought processes and mental impressions against
disclosure." Communications between a party, its attorneys and
actual or prospective litigation funders necessarily contain and
reflect "opinions by . . . counsel regarding the strength of . .
. claims, the existence and merit of . . . defenses, and other
observations and impressions regarding issues that have arisen in
this litigation," and fall squarely within this protection. Doe
v. Society of Missionaries of Sacred Heart (N.D. Ill. May 1,
2014). The "the terms of the final agreement -- such as the
financing premium or acceptable settlement conditions" similarly
"reflect an analysis of the merits of the case."  Carlyle
Investment Management v. Moonmouth Co. (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2015).

Parties seeking disclosure of communications between claimants
and funders argue that even if they do constitute work product
that protection has been waived.  This argument has been
repeatedly rejected. While disclosure to a third-party can result
in waiver, it generally will not when the disclosure is done
pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement and steps are otherwise
taken to control the confidential information.  As explained in
Viamedia, "the point of the protection is not to keep information
secret from the world at large but to keep it out of the hands of
one's adversary in litigation." In that case, the court concluded
that the disclosure to litigation funding firms pursuant to an
NDA did not result in a waiver because it did not make it
"substantially more likely that its work-product protected
information would fall in the hands of its adversaries."  As
several courts have observed, "litigation funders have an
inherent interest in maintaining the confidentiality of potential
clients' information." See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Fisher v. Ho (E.D.
Texas March 15, 2016).

Viamedia is the latest of numerous cases that have examined the
issue of work product protection for communications or agreements
with actual or prospective funders and reached similar
conclusions. (A partial list follows; please visit this page for
a comprehensive list of relevant cases that will be regularly
updated.)

In a patent infringement case, the IP holding company that owned
the patent at issue reached out to various "investment brokers
and potential investors with slide presentations and other
documents that contained disclosures of Inpro's licensing and
litigation strategies and also estimates of licensing and
litigation revenues."  The court rejected the argument that these
documents were not created for litigation purposes but rather for
"business advice" and found the work product protection
applicable because the documents were prepared "with the
intention of coordinating potential investors to aid in future
possible litigation." Because the documents were shared pursuant
to an NDA the protection was preserved.  Mondis Technology, Ltd.
v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Texas May 4, 2011).

In a trade secret misappropriation case, the court, in an
expansive opinion discussing many issues relevant to litigation
funding, including champerty, maintenance, and issues related to
the "real party in interest," held that documents provided
subject to an NDA did not lose their work product status when
shared with a funder, but also held that certain "damage
estimates, summaries or worksheets" shared with prospective
funders without an NDA did need to be turned over because work
product protection had been waived by failing to protect the
material from broader disclosure through an NDA.  The court
otherwise found the "deal documents" in the case irrelevant
having "nothing to do with the claims or defenses in the case."
Miller UK v. Caterpillar (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2014).

In a complex dispute related to the propriety of funding foreign
litigation against plaintiffs by a company in liquidation in the
foreign jurisdiction, the court concluded that although in a
funded case "the overlap between business and litigation reasons
for the creation of the disputed documents is more extensive than
usual" the work product protection still applied.  This extended
not just to communications with the funder but also to "the terms
of the final agreement -- such as the financing premium or
acceptable settlement conditions -- [because it] could reflect an
analysis of the merits of the case." As the court explained,
"allowing work product protection for documents and
communications relating to third-party funding places those
parties that require outside funding on the same footing as those
who do not and maintains a level playing field among adversaries
in litigation." Carlyle Investment Management v. Moonmouth Co.
(Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2015).

In an involuntary bankruptcy case brought by an individual who
had a business dispute with the bankrupt entity, the court found
work product protection was not waived by disclosure to a funder
reasoning "it does not matter that [the funder's] obvious purpose
is to obtain a return on its investment, just as it does not
matter that counsel's purpose is typically to earn a fee."  The
court did order production of the funding agreement because it
was "central to one theory presented" in the case, but allowed
redaction of the payment terms and other terms that would reveal
counsel's "mental impressions and opinion" of the litigation. In
re Intern. Oil Trading Co. (Bankr. S.D. Fla. April 28, 2016).
If all of these cases have found similarly that a party's
communications with its funder, including the final agreement,
constitutes protected work product, what is the story with the
Gbarabe case? First of all, the case was a class action, and the
plaintiff conceded the relevance of counsel's funding agreement
to determining the adequacy of representation; an essential
element in the class action context. (A funding agreement will
not always be relevant to an adequacy determination -- such as
where concerns about counsel's ability to fund the action are
"purely speculative." See Kaplan et al. v. SAC Capital Advisors
LP et al., No. 12-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015)). Second,
the plaintiff had already turned over to the defense a redacted
copy of the litigation funding agreement before the discovery
dispute made its way to the court.  Third, and very
significantly, as the court highlighted "plaintiff does not
assert that the agreement is privileged."  Instead, plaintiff
argued that the "contractual obligation to preserve the
confidentiality of the funder's identity" prohibited production.
The court concluded that the funding agreement did not actually
prohibit plaintiffs from producing the agreement, and that, even
if it did, "plaintiff does not cite any authority for the
proposition that such a provision would override discovery
obligations or a court order."

In the end, the court found that plaintiff's counsel could not
adequately represent the class and, for that and other reasons,
denied class certification.  In the court's exhaustive opinion
denying class certification, litigation funding was pointedly not
cited as a reason.  Instead the court noted counsel's "complete
disregard for scheduling orders"; "lack of familiarity with or
understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Civil Local Rules"; "fail[ure] to diligently prosecute the case";
submission of "deficient" expert reports; failure to produce data
underlying the expert reports; and class member evidence "riddled
with falsity and unreliability."

So what does Gbarabe tell us about litigation finance? Not much.
It was an unusual litigation funding case and one in which
counsel did not resist the disclosure of the litigation finance
agreement on work product or other privilege grounds. In a more
typical case (especially outside the class action context), work
product protection should continue to protect the funding
agreement (or at least its most sensitive terms) and other
communications with prospective or actual funders from
potentially prejudicial disclosure to an adversary. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Dismissal of 2 Counts of Stone Street Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled STONE STREET PARTNERS, LLC, a/k/a PMD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, THE CITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, PATRICIA JACKOWIAK,
Director, Department of Administrative Hearings; THE CITY OF
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF STREETS AND SANITATION; THOMAS G. BYRNE,
Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Streets and
Sanitation, Defendants-Appellees, case No. 1-13-3159 (Ill. App.),
Judge Mathias W. Delort of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
Judicial District, Sixth Division, affirmed the circuit court's
order dismissing counts I and II of Stone Street's complaint with
prejudice, and circuit court's order denying Stone Street's
petition for administrative review.

On Jan. 17, 2012, the City of Chicago Department of Streets and
Sanitation ("DSS") issued an administrative notice of ordinance
violation against an entity named PMD regarding property located
at 34 East Oak Street in Chicago.  The notice stated that Stone
Street violated section 7-28-261 of the Chicago Municipal Code.

On Feb. 23, 2012, an attorney for Stone Street appeared before
the Department to contest the notice.  Stone Street's attorney
objected to the entire proceeding on the basis that the City was
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law because no attorney
appeared for the City.  Pamela Harris, the administrative law
judge ("ALJ") rejected this argument and found Stone Street
liable.  The ALJ then assessed a $300 fine, which was $100 more
than the minimum, and a $40 fee and entered judgment against
Stone Street for $340. Stone Street's complaint does not allege
that its attorney specifically objected to the imposition of a
fine greater than $200.

On March 26, 2012, Stone Street filed a four-count "Class Action
& Administrative Review Complaint."  In count I, Stone Street
sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating all fines,
penalties, orders and judgments where the city appeared without a
licensed attorney on behalf of a class.  Stone Street also sought
a declaration that the City of Chicago's practice of permitting
an ALJ to act as both judge and prosecutor" violated its right to
due process under the federal and Illinois constitutions.
In count II, it alleged that the ALJ who heard Stone Street's
case stated that, while she was authorized to impose the minimum
fine on anyone who entered a plea to liability, she would impose
what Stone Street characterized as a trial tax by imposing more
than the minimum fine on anyone who opted to proceed with a
contested hearing.  Stone Street requested a declaration that the
custom and practice of penalizing litigants for exercising their
right to a contested hearing violates due process and injunctive
relief requiring that the practice cease and desist.

Count III was a claim under the Freedom of Information Act.
Count IV was a complaint for administrative review of the
Department's decision.

On Sept. 11, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
counts I, II, and III pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.  After a hearing, the court dismissed count II,
finding that Stone Street failed to state a "cognizable claim for
violation of due process.  Count IV, Stone Street's claim for
administrative review, remained pending.  On Aug. 14, 2013, the
circuit court resolved that claim by denying Stone Street's
petition for administrative review and affirming the ALJ's
finding of liability as to the ordinance violation.  The appeal
followed.

Judge Delort finds that because Stone Street has not alleged that
an actual person acting on behalf of the City engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, count I fails to state a valid
claim.  He also finds that the circuit court properly dismissed
count II of Stone Street's complaint for failure to state a claim
for a due process violation.  He says the sum total of the
allegations in Stone Street's complaint, and all reasonable
inferences which can be drawn from those allegations, is that the
ALJ conveyed the City's constitutionally permissible offer of
plea bargaining.  The ALJ's threat to impose higher fines on
persons who requested hearings -- a threat she made good upon by
increasing Stone Street's fine by $100 over the minimum -- was
heavy-handed.  But case law from higher courts compels the Court
to find that her practice was constitutional, as against the
specific challenges raised in Stone Street's complaint.

Finally, Judge Delort finds that the arguments Stone Street
raised before the circuit court on administrative review were
largely duplicative of the legal issues it raised in counts I and
II of its complaint.  Accordingly, on the merits, Stone Street's
petition for administrative review fails for the same reason
counts I and II fail.  Moreover, Stone Street did not argue in
the court, nor has it argued in this court, that the ALJ's
finding of liability was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.  As a result, this issue is forfeited.  The circuit
court therefore correctly denied Stone Street's petition for
administrative review.

Accordingly, Judge Delort affirmed the circuit court's order
dismissing counts I and II of Stone Street's complaint with
prejudice, and the court's order denying Stone Street's petition
for administrative review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LLWxN9 from Leagle.com.


COMENITY LLC: Court Stays "Stephens" Pending ACA Int'l Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JENNIFER STEPHENS and CHRISTOPHER GULLEY on
behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COMENITY, LLC dba COMENITY BANK, Defendant.
COMENITY LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JACKIE WASOWICZ, an
individual, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00670-MMD-NJK
(D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and
the Defendant's Motion to Stay, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Supplement and the Defendant's Motion to File Counterclaims.

Plaintiffs Stephens and Gulley initiated the class action based
on violations of the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act ("TCPA")
against the Defendant on March 6, 2017.  They filed their first
amended complaint on July 27, 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege that they do not have any credit cards
associated with Comenity and, as a result, neither the Plaintiff
has provided their cell phone number to the Defendant. However,
both the Plaintiffs purportedly received calls from the
Defendant. When they answered a call, there was a prolonged
silence and delay prior to being connected to a live
representative.  The Plaintiffs requested that the Defendant stop
calling their cell phones, but the calls continued.

The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of persons
within the United States who: (i) received a telephone call from
Defendant or its agents; (ii) on his or her cellular telephone
number; (iii) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
systems or artificial or prerecorded voice system as set forth in
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(3); and (iv) where the Defendant
has no record of prior express consent for such individual to
make such call, within four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint through the date of final approval.

The Plaintiffs bring two claims: one for negligent violations of
the TCPA and the other for knowing and/or willful violations of
the TCPA.

On April 25, 2017, the Defendant filed its Third Party Complaint
("TPC") against Jackie Wasowicz.  In the TPC, it alleges that
Wasowicz, who is Plaintiff Stephens' daughter, provided Stephens'
phone number as her own and indicated that the Defendant could
contact Wasowicz at that number to discuss her account.  The
Defendant brings four claims against Wasowicz for
indemnification, breach of contract, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.

Pending before the Court are four motions: the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike or Alternatively Sever the Third Party Complaint and
Motion to Stay Filing of Responsive Pleading; the Defendant's
Motion to Stay; the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Declaration of Alexis M. Wood; and the Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims Against Plaintiff Jennifer
Stephens.

Despite the timeliness of the TPC, Judge Du finds that impleader
is improper for three reasons: (i) Wasowicz's liability for the
TPC's breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation
claims are in no way dependent upon the Defendant's liability
under the TCPA, and Wasowicz's liability for the TPC's
indemnification claim is dependent on only those calls made to
Plaintiff Stephens and not to Plaintiff Gulley or the purported
class members; (ii) the likelihood that jurors would be
distracted or confused by a "mini-trial" as to whether Wasowicz
gave the Defendant consent to contact the cell phone number of
Plaintiff Stephens; and (iii) the lack of prejudice to and
ability of Defendant to bring a subsequent action on all four
claims if the Defendant is found liable in the original action.

Secondly, this is a purported class action.  Therefore, in the
event class certification occurs, any effort expended by the
Defendant at trial presenting evidence or testimony regarding
whether Wasowicz breached her obligations to the Defendant and
misrepresented that Stephens' number was her own will muddy the
issues that are pertinent to the entire class.  Finally, in the
event the Plaintiffs are successful in the original action, there
is no evidence that there will be prejudice to the Defendant if
it brings a subsequent, separate action against Wasowicz.
Therefore, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

Judge Du denied the Motion to Supplement.  She resolved the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike without the need to consider the
supplemental declaration of Alexis M. Wood in support of their
Motion to Strike.  Moreover, she says the purpose of filing the
supplement is to buttress the Plaintiffs' contention that the TPC
is meritless, which is not a consideration the Court needs to
make when deciding whether to strike a third-party complaint.

The Judge finds that a complete stay of the case is warranted.
She agrees with the Defendants argument that the Court should
stay the proceedings in the action until the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals issues a decision in ACA International v. Federal
Communications Commission regarding FCC's 2015 declaratory ruling
and order.  A stay would likely be limited in duration.  The two
issues raised in the ACA appeal that the Defendant points to --
whether an ATDS includes only the present ability to dial random
or sequential numbers or whether the definition includes the
potential ability to do so and whether "called party" means
"intended recipient" or subscriber/customary user" -- are key
issues in the case.

Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed.  She has reviewed these arguments
and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as
they do not affect the outcome of the parties' motions.  She
therefore ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is
granted.  The Clerk is instructed to strike the Defendant's Third
Party Complaint from the record.

The Judge further ordered that the Defendant's Motion to Stay is
granted.  The case is stayed pending the D.C. Circuit's decision
in ACA.  The parties are directed to file a joint status report
within seven days of the D.C. Circuit's decision.

She denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement and denied
without prejudice and with leave to refile after the stay in the
case is lifted the Defendant's Motion to File Counterclaims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HJS8CR from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Jennifer Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez,
Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez & Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice.

Christopher Gulley, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci,
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L.
Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez, Ronald A. Marron,
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Alexis M. Wood,
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Comenity, LLC, doing business as Comenity Bank, Defendant,
represented by Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM
-- Ballard Spahr LLP, Russell Jason Burke --
BURKERBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree
-- DEMAREELBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP.

Comenity, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joel Edward
Tasca, Ballard Spahr LLP, Lindsay C. Demaree, Ballard Spahr LLP &
Russell Jason Burke, Ballard Spahr LLP.


COMERICA BANK: Katz et al. Sue over Woodbridge Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------
MARSHA KATZ, DAVID BREMSON, HARRY BREYER, and JANE BREYER,
individually and as attorney in fact for Lorraine Schockett, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. COMERICA BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-
62551-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
including pre-judgment interest for direct and proximate result
of Comerica's aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiffs purchased investments from the Woodbridge group of
companies. These companies' owner and operator, Robert H.
Shapiro, individually and through his controlled affiliates,
marketed promissory notes and other offerings as low-risk, high-
yield investments backed by high-interest real-estate loans to
third-party commercial borrowers. But, in reality, Woodbridge had
few real counterparties. Nearly all of the allegedly supporting
loans were to Shapiro's own shell companies.

According to the complaint, lacking the revenue to pay returns
owed to Plaintiffs and other investors, Shapiro paid the returns
using new investor money, raising more than $1.22 billion before
the Ponzi scheme collapsed. In December 2017, most of the
Woodbridge companies declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The
investors now confront enormous losses. The SEC, while not
seeking restitution for investors, named Shapiro and his
Woodbridge entities as defendants in a complaint filed in this
District on December 20, 2017.

Comerica had notice of Shapiro's fraud from a series of red flags
associated with the accounts from which Shapiro misappropriated
over $21 million in investor funds. Each Woodbridge bank account
was opened and maintained at Comerica, and Comerica continued to
enable Shapiro's fraud even after several state regulatory
agencies ordered him to cease and desist operations. Woodbridge
lacked internal controls and engaged in many atypical banking
activities. Drawing on Woodbridge's Comerica accounts, Shapiro
spent millions of dollars on private planes, expensive cars,
jewelry, and other luxury goods. Shapiro's wife, and his wife's
company, also received substantial investor proceeds from
Woodbridge's accounts at Comerica.

Although Woodbridge was a billion-dollar enterprise, Shapiro
remained the sole signatory on all of its accounts and insisted
on hand-signing every check to investors and sales agents.
Woodbridge and Shapiro used $368 million in new investor funds to
pay existing investors out of Comerica accounts. Shapiro pooled
investment funds from promissory note holders and purchasers of
his other fraudulent offerings in fund entity accounts, further
commingling those funds into a single Woodbridge operating
account under his control. The commingling involved transfers of
around $1.66 billion and nearly 11,000 Comerica account
transactions.

Raising yet another red flag, instead of hiring external
auditors, Woodbridge relied on a controller who was not a
certified public accountant.

Shapiro's banking activities at Comerica were integral to his
scheme to defraud investors. Comerica substantially assisted, and
had knowledge of, the Woodbridge investor fraud. Comerica
therefore is liable to Plaintiffs and the other defrauded
investors for their losses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq.
          SONN LAW GROUP P.A.
          One Turnberry Place
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 912 3000
          E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755 4799
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Morrow" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned DONALD MORROW, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS,
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 3-16-cv-1953 (M.D. Tenn.).

This court previously granted in part and denied in part a Motion
to Dismiss filed by Defendant Community Health Systems, Inc.
(CHS).  The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for breach of
contract, intentional interference with contractual relations,
and civil conspiracy against CHS and held that Plaintiff had no
standing to allege breach of contract or intentional interference
with contractual relations because he was not a party to the
contract at issue.

Plaintiff alleges that, because of the wrongful business
practices of Defendants, (CHS and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries), Defendants charged patients, including Plaintiff,
a non-discounted amount that is, the full amount of the medical
bill resulting in Defendants' receiving money from patients,
including Plaintiff, to which they were not entitled.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that all
Defendants participated in this business model and all Defendants
benefitted from it and, thus, were unjustly enriched.

The remaining Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted in
part and denied in part.  Plaintiff's claims against these
Defendants for breach of contract, intentional interference with
contractual relations, and civil conspiracy will be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadczned
from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7l2hk9r from Leagle.com

Donald Morrow, Individually, and on behalf of all others
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett --
cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC.

Donald Morrow, Individually, and on behalf of all others
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Zager --
jzager@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kenneth A. Metzger
-- Kenny@taylormartino.com -- Taylor-Martino, P.C., Philip N.
Elbert -- pelbert@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Richard
H. Taylor -- richardtaylor@taylormartino.com -- Taylor-Martino,
P.C., Steven A. Martino SteveMartino@TaylorMartino.com -- Taylor-
Martino, P.C. & W. Lloyd Copeland -- Lloyd@taylormartino.com --
Taylor-Martino, P.C..

Community Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by John R.
Jacobson -- jjacobson@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson &
William M. Outhier -- wouthier@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.

CHSPSC, LLC, Defendant, represented by John R. Jacobson, Riley,
Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier, Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.

Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier,
Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson & William M. Outhier,
Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.


COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Eguizubal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIRO EGUIZUBAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY RESTUARANTS,
Inc., a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC687947 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wage under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action and representative action
to remedy wage-and-hour violations by Defendants. For at least
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and through the
present, the Defendants have allegedly engaged in a uniform
policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees of Defendants in violation of
applicable California laws, including, without limitation,
failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum
and overtime wages, failing to furnish Plaintiff and other
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, and failing to
pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Casparjtvalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507 8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtiawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtiawgroup.com

               - and -

          CHRISTOPHER A ADAMS, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425 1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymcntCounsel.com


COMPUTER RECYCLING: Kennedy Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN KENNEDY and other similarly situated non-exempt employees,
the Plaintiff, v. COMPVTER RECYCLING SERVICES OF SOUTH FLORIDA
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and MICHAEL J, LANANNA;
SR., Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-023283
(Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Fla., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
and/or minimum wages, additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from May 2015 through May 2017, as a non-exempt
laborer. The Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a verbal
agreement in which Plaintiff was promised to become a part owner
of the company after he completed a 30-day probation period.
However, Defendants refused to make Plaintiff a partial owner of
the Company.

In addition, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff the
required overtime and/or minimum wages at a rate of one and a
half times Plaintiffs regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 within a single work week. The Plaintiff was paid
approximately $500 dollars a week. The Defendants had or should
have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff,
including those hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of 40 in a
given week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSERV FLAG: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conserv Flag
Company, LLC. The case is styled Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Emil Assad and Conserv Flag Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-00061 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018).

Conserv Flag Company, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line
of business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of
merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CONTINENTIAL SERVICE: Faces "Casarez" Suit in S.D. of Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continential
Service Group, Inc. d/b/a ConServe. The case is styled as Rosa
Casarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Continential Service Group, Inc. d/b/a
ConServe and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002
(S.D. Tex., January 3, 2018).

Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe
provides debt collection services to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   6906 Rocky Top Circle
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


CORNER TABLE: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corner Table
Restaurants, LLC. The case is styled as Lucia Marett,
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Corner Table Restaurants, LLC
doing business as: The Smith Restaurant & Bar, Defendant, Case
No1:18-cv-00047 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018).

Corner Table Restaurants, LLC is in the Restaurant Management
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CSX CORP: Zamansky Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky LLC on Dec. 18 disclosed that it is investigating CSX
Corp. (NASDAQ: CSX), the railway conglomerate based in
Jacksonville, Florida, for potential breaches of fiduciary duties
to shareholders.  On December 15, 2017, CSX's controversial CEO,
Hunter Harrison, died after only several months on the job.
Mr. Harrison's hiring by CSX's Board was controversial because he
was 73 years old and in ill health, and because his hiring
resulted from a campaign by activist shareholder Paul Hilal.

On December 17, 2017, days after Mr. Harrison's death, the Wall
Street Journal reported in an article that CSX faces tough
questions on the death of its CEO.  According to its article, CSX
Board members allegedly knew of Mr. Harrison's ill health before
his hiring, yet proceeded with his large compensation deal
anyway.  The article raised questions about the alleged lack of
background diligence performed by Board members about Harrison's
hiring.

CSX's stock price fell substantially on the recent news of
Mr. Harrison's medical leave, and then again on his death.
According to Jake Zamansky, investment fraud attorney, CSX's
Board members owe the company and its shareholders fiduciary
duties, which include duties of care and loyalty.  We are
investigating whether there was any potential breach of fiduciary
duty to the company in the hiring of Harrison or in the
compensation awarded him, Mr. Zamansky says.

What CSX Shareholders Can Do

If you are a shareholder of CSX who purchased before Harrison's
hiring and who still holds the stock, please contact us to review
or discuss your legal rights.  You may, without obligation or
cost to you, email jake@zamansky.com or call the law firm at
(212) 742-1414.

                   About Zamansky LLC

Zamansky LLC is an investment fraud law firm with a focus on
securities, hedge fund, ERISA and shareholder derivative and
class action litigation. [GN]


CTI BIOPHARMA: Jan. 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
KEVIN HAMMOND, Derivatively And On
Behalf of CTI BIOPHARMA CORP.,
Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. BIANCO, LOUIS A. BIANCO, JACK
W. SINGER, BRUCE J. SEELEY, JOHN H.
BAUER, PHILLIP M. NUDELMAN, REED V.
TUCKSON, KAREN IGNAGNI, RICHARD L.
LOVE, MARY O. MUNDINGER, and
FREDERICK W. TELLING,
Defendants,

and CTI BIOPHARMA CORP.,
Nominal Defendant.

NO. 16-2-05818-3 SEA


MAURIO ELEY, Derivatively And On Behalf of
CTI BIOPHARMA CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES A. BIANCO, LOUIS A. BIANCO, JACK
W. SINGER, BRUCE J. SEELEY, JOHN H.
BAUER, PHILLIP M. NUDELMAN, REED V.
TUCKSON, KAREN IGNAGNI, RICHARD L.
LOVE, MARY O. MUNDINGER, and
FREDERICK W. TELLING,
Defendants,

and
CTI BIOPHARMA Corp.
Nominal Defendant.

NO. 16-2-14422-5 SEA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTOF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND
OF HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, COMMON STOCK OR OTHER EQUITY
SECURITIES OF CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. AS OF OCTOBER 24, 2017

THIS NOTICE CONCERNS A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS CONCERNING THE LAWSUIT. THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN
EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY
CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THE LAWSUIT. THE STATEMENTS IN THIS NOTICE
ARE NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

All holders of CTI Biopharma Corp. ("CTI") common stock or other
equities are hereby notified that a settlement (the "Settlement")
has been reached as to claims asserted in the above-captioned
shareholder derivative action pending in a state court in
Washington (the "State Derivative Lawsuit") on behalf of CTI
against certain current and former directors of CTI. The
terms of the proposed Settlement are set out in a Stipulation of
Settlement dated October 24, 2017 ("Stipulation of Settlement,"
and together with its exhibits, the "Settlement Agreement")
that has been filed with the Court.

If approved (and the approval becomes final and no longer subject
to appeal), the Settlement will release all of the claims in this
State Derivative Lawsuit, as well as the claims in a related
derivative lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington (the "Federal Derivative
Lawsuit").

A hearing on the Settlement will be held on January 31, 2018 at
8:30 a.m. (the "Fairness Hearing") before King County Superior
Court Judge Barbara A. Mack, in the Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County, 516 3rd Ave., Room W-728, Seattle,
Washington 98104.

At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether to
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate
and in the best interest of CTI and its shareholders, (ii)
whether to dismiss the State Derivative Lawsuit on the merits and
with prejudice, enjoin the prosecution of all related claims, and
release the defendants and their related individuals and entities
(as defined in the Settlement Agreement) from all claims of the
type asserted in the State Derivative Lawsuit, and (iii) whether
to approve the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid to counsel for the plaintiffs in the State Derivative
Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. If the Court approves
the Settlement (and if that approval becomes final and no longer
subject to appeal), the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Lawsuit will ask the federal court to dismiss the Federal
Derivative Lawsuit with prejudice.

The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of
the Fairness Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend
to attend the Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and
time of the hearing with the Court.

SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION
The above-captioned State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal
Derivative Lawsuit (which is captioned In re CTI Biopharma
Shareholder Derivative Action, 2:16-cv-00756 (W.D. Wash.)
are derivative actions1 that arise from statements made by CTI
regarding the clinical development of one of its pipeline drugs,
pacritinib. The complaints filed in the State Derivative Lawsuit
and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit allege violations of law
arising out of, among other things, CTI's statements about
pacritinib's clinical development, and bring claims derivatively
on behalf of CTI against James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, Jack
W. Singer, Bruce J. Seeley, John H. Bauer, Phillip M. Nudelman,
Reed V. Tuckson, Karen Ignagni, Richard L. Love, Mary O.
Mundinger, and Frederick W. Telling (collectively, the CTI
Derivative Defendants").

This notice is intended to provide only a summary of the
plaintiffs' claims. If you hold or beneficially own, directly or
indirectly, common stock or other equity securities of CTI, you
should review the complaints for their full content. The
complaints filed in the State and Federal Derivative Lawsuits can
be viewed at www.ctibiopharma.com.

REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT
State Derivative Plaintiffs and their counsel, as well as the
plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Lawsuit and their counsel,
believe that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of CTI and its shareholders.
They reached this conclusion after considering: (i) the claims
asserted against the CTI Derivative Defendants and the potential
defenses, (ii) the substantial benefits that CTI would receive
from the Settlement, and (iii) their own evaluation of the facts
and circumstances that gave rise to the claims.

The CTI Derivative Defendants expressly deny that plaintiffs'
claims have any merit or that pursuit of such claims would be in
the best interests of CTI or its shareholders. The CTI Derivative
Defendants expressly deny all assertions of wrongdoing or
liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or
omissions that were, could have been, or could be asserted
against them in the State Derivative Lawsuit or the Federal
Derivative Lawsuit. CTI, in a good and fair exercise of its
business judgment, determined that the terms of the proposed
Settlement would be in the best interests of CTI and its
shareholders. As discussed below, the proposed Settlement confers
substantial non-monetary benefits on CTI.

PRINCIPAL SETTLEMENT TERMS
Settlement Relief
Subject to the terms and conditions discussed in the Settlement
Agreement, CTI will adopt certain enhancements to its Board of
Directors and to its governing policies, practices, and
procedures (the "Governance Enhancements").

The Governance Enhancements, subject to the terms and conditions
in the Settlement Agreement, include (among other things), (i)
adoption of a Board resolution relating to the content of all
CTI-retained independent data monitoring committee charters; (ii)
engagement of an independent expert or entity to conduct yearly
audits of CTI's compliance with Good Clinical Practices; (iii)
the creation of a Risk Compliance Officer position; (iv) the
implementation of certain employee training in risk assessment
and compliance; (v) certain improvements to CTI's Audit
Committee, including the requirement that the Audit Committee
review CTI's periodic public reports to facilitate proper
disclosure of risks and risk factors; (vi) establish an internal
audit function that will monitor the Company's adherence to its
policies and procedures, including those related to
identification and disclosure of drug candidate safety issues;
(vii) continuing-education requirements for members of the Board;
and (viii) improvements to CTI's nominating committee,
compensation committee, and clawback policy.

The Governance Enhancements are attached as Exhibit E to the
Stipulation of Settlement and are available at
www.ctibiopharma.com.

Release
The Settlement Agreement, if finally approved and no longer
subject to appeal, will result in a release of all claims that
have been, could have been or could be asserted in the State
Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit through the
Final Settlement Date by or on behalf of CTI against all of the
CTI Derivative Defendants (and related persons and entities
defined in the Settlement Agreement as "Releasees") and an
injunction and order barring the prosecution of any such claims
against any of the Releasees. The full release (including all of
its relevant definitions) is set out in the Settlement Agreement,
which is available at
www.ctibiopharma.com.

STATUS OF SETTLEMENT
The Court issued an order (the "Preliminary Approval Order")
regarding the Settlement on November 21, 2017, in which it found
that the proposed Settlement is within the range of possible
approval and that notifying CTI's common stock or other equity
securities holders was warranted. The Preliminary Approval Order
thus scheduled the Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant
final approval of the proposed Settlement. The Court's
preliminary approval order is available at www.ctibiopharma.com.

The Court has not made (and will not make in connection with its
consideration of the proposed Settlement) any determination as to
the merits of any of the claims or defenses in the State
Derivative Lawsuit or the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. This notice
does not imply that any CTI Derivative Defendant (or any other
Releasee) would be found liable or that relief would be awarded
if the State Derivative Lawsuit and Federal Derivative Lawsuit
were not being settled.

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
Consistent with the substantial benefits conferred upon, and
expected to be conferred upon, CTI and its shareholders by the
Governance Enhancements, and, subject to the Court's approval,
CTI has agreed to pay, or cause to be paid by its insurer,
$800,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for the
Derivative Plaintiffs. Counsel for the Derivative Plaintiffs have
been retained by their clients on a contingent fee basis and,
thus, to date Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel have not been paid
for their legal services or reimbursed for the expenses they have
incurred in connection with the litigation of the State
Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit.

Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses
were the subject of arm's length negotiations among the Settling
Parties, and these negotiations were conducted only after the
principal terms of the proposed Settlement, including the
Governance Enhancements, were agreed upon. Following extensive
negotiations, all of which were made through JAMS mediator Jed
Melnick, a nationally renowned mediator, the Settling Parties
ultimately reached an agreement on the amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid to counsel for Derivative Plaintiffs'
counsel, subject to Court approval.

Further, Derivative Plaintiffs will seek Court approval of $2,500
Service Awards to each of them for their participation and
efforts in the prosecution of the State Derivative Lawsuit and
the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. The Service Awards shall be paid
from the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court to
counsel for Derivative Plaintiffs.

YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT AND TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING
If you agree that the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of CTI
and its shareholders, you do not need to do anything.

If, however, you are a current holder of CTI common stock or
other equity securities as of October 24, 2017, the date of the
execution of the Stipulation of Settlement, and through the date
of the Fairness Hearing ("Securities Holder"), and wish to object
to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed
Settlement, to any term(s) of Settlement Agreement or to any
other issue relating to the Settlement Agreement, you may submit
a written objection on your own (or through an attorney you hire
at your own expense), and you (or your attorney, if you have
hired one) may appear at the Fairness Hearing. YOUR OBJECTION
MUST BE POSTMARKED BY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 17, 2018. The written
objection should set out the specific reasons, if any, for each
objection, including any legal support you wish to bring to the
Court's attention and any evidence you wish to introduce in
support of such objections. The statement of objection must
include the caption of the State Derivative Lawsuit
(as set out above) and the following information: (i) your name,
address, telephone number, email address (if available), and
proof of being a Securities Holder, including the number of
securities of CTI held and date(s) of purchase, (ii) if the
objection is made by your counsel, the counsel's name, address,
telephone number, and e-mail address, together with a notice of
appearance, (iii) a statement of the reasons for the objection
and copies of all evidence you or your counsel wish to have the
Court consider in connection with the objection, (iv) the
identities of any cases, by name, court, and docket number, in
which you or your counsel has objected to a settlement in the
last three years, and (v) if you, or your counsel, intends to
make an appearance at the Fairness Hearing, a statement of such
intention to appear. Your written objection must be mailed to:
(1) the Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel, (2) CTI's and CTI
Derivative Defendants' counsel, and (3) the Court (as set out
below) and (4) must be postmarked by no later than
January 17, 2018.

The Court:

         Clerk of Court
         Superior Court of the State of Washington
         for King County
         516 3rd Ave.
         Seattle, Washington 98104

Counsel for the CTI Derivative Defendants:

         Jeffrey Kilduff
         Ross B. Galin
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Times Square Tower
         7 Times Square
         New York, New York 10036
         (212) 326-2000

State Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Phillip Kim
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         212-686-1060

Federal Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Stuart J. Guber
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         215-277-5770, ext. 413

The Court will consider your written objection whether or not you
choose to attend the Fairness Hearing.

If you do not meet the January 17, 2018 deadline, your
objection(s) will not be considered by the Court, and neither you
nor your attorney (if you hire one) will be allowed to
appear at the Fairness Hearing.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pending final determination of whether to approve the Settlement
Agreement, the Court has preliminarily barred and enjoined
holders of CTI's common stock and equity securities and
individuals and entities related to them (including anyone
purporting to act on behalf of or derivatively for any of them)
from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in,
participating in or receiving any benefits or other relief from,
any other lawsuit, arbitration or administrative, regulatory or
other proceeding (as well as filing a complaint in intervention
in any such proceeding in which the person or entity filing the
complaint in intervention purports to be acting on behalf of or
derivatively for any of the above) against any Releasees in any
jurisdiction based on or relating to claims that will be released
or barred by the Settlement Agreement if the Court approves it
(including all claims that may be brought in a derivative
capacity on behalf of CTI).

The terms of the preliminary injunction are set out in the
Preliminary Approval Order, which is available at
www.ctibiopharma.com.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Please do not write or telephone the Court about the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

If you have any questions, you should contact the CTI Plaintiffs'
Derivative Counsel:

         Phillip Kim
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         212-686-1060

         Stuart J. Guber
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         215-277-5770

THIS NOTICE IS NOT ABOUT A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
This notice relates solely to the settlement of the State
Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit, which were
brought derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of CTI.
The State Derivative Lawsuit and the Federal Derivative Lawsuit
are not class action lawsuits, and no individual stockholder has
an individual claim or right to individual compensation. The
settlement described in this notice is separate from, and does
not relate to, IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL, a federal securities action pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Prefers Stay to Arbitration in "Silva"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay in
the case captioned JENER DA SILVA, Plaintiff, v. DARDEN
RESTAURANTS, INC.; GMRI, INC.; YARD HOUSE USA, INC.; YARD HOUSE
NORTHRIDGE LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-CV-05663-ODW (E) (C.D. Cal.).

Defendants Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI, Inc., Yard House USA,
Inc., and Yard House Northridge, LLC, move to compel arbitration
of Plaintiff's claims, or alternatively, to stay all proceedings
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young
LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), certiorari granted, Ernst &
Young, LLP v. Morris, 137 S.Ct. 809 (2017).

Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his employment,
Defendants failed to pay him, and other employees similarly
situated, all wages due, including minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and necessary expenditures incurred in discharging
duties. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants did not allow
meal and rest period and failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements or maintain required records.

District Courts have the discretionary power to stay proceedings.
This power is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.
The Supreme Court could either affirm the Ninth Circuit's
conclusion that class action waivers violate the NLRA, or it
could reverse and hold that mandatory class action waivers are
enforceable and do not violate the NLRA. The outcome of the
Supreme Court's ruling in Morris, will most likely directly
impact Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments in Morris and
taken the matter under submission. Due to the limited duration of
the proposed delay, the Court finds that this factor does not
weigh against a stay.

Continued litigation on class certification issues might cause
unnecessary hardship on Defendants and require all parties to
incur more legal fees and expenses as a result of discovery that
ultimately may be unnecessary.  Therefore, the second factor
leans in favor of granting a stay of the litigation.

The third factor considers whether a stay will simplify or
complicate the judicial process. The Court finds that this factor
weighs in favor of a stay. There is little value in litigating
potential class claims or undertaking in class discovery now,
when the Supreme Court's impending ruling might ultimately moot
those claims.

The action is stayed until the Supreme Court issues a decision in
Morris. All dates and deadlines are vacated.  Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration is terminated without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yajcru6v from Leagle.com.

Jener Da Silva, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern --
MMatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Jener Da Silva, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph Bass --
dbass@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC & Tagore
Subramaniam -- tagore@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.
Darden Restaurants, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jesse M. Caryl -- jcaryl@bcklegal.com -- Bent
Caryl and Kroll LLP & Steven M. Kroll -- skroll@bcklegal.com --
Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP.

GMRI, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP.

Yard House USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and Kroll LLP.

Yard House Northridge LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl and
Kroll LLP.


DEPOMED INC: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in "Huang" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INCHEN HUANG, Plaintiff, v. DEPOMED, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04830-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, granted Plaintiff Depomed Investor Group ("DIG")'s
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Selection of Counsel, and denied Pontiac's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel.

Before the Court are two motions for appointment as the lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel for a securities
class action, one filed by DIG and the other filed by Plaintiff
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Defendant
Depomed between Feb. 26, 2015 and Aug.t 7, 2017.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court must now
select a lead plaintiff.

Originally, five parties filed motions seeking appointment as the
lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of counsel. Three
of the parties subsequently withdrew their motions or chose not
to oppose the motions of other potential lead plaintiffs.  DIG
and Pontiac remain as the two parties contesting appointment as
the lead plaintiff.

Judge Tigar finds that DIG has the greatest financial stake in
the outcome of the case and is the presumptive lead plaintiff.
It claims losses of $403,930.09.  Its losses are uncontested and
on their face are greater than Pontiac's claimed $143,025.57 in
losses.  DIG also meets Rule 23's typicality and adequacy
requirements.  Once a movant has demonstrated that it has the
largest financial interest, it need only make a prima facie
showing of its typicality and adequacy.

Pontiac offers no case law supporting the proposition that a
court should disregard an investor movant with the largest
financial interest because that investor made arguments about the
weakness of another investor's claim in its lead plaintiff
briefing.  From the Plaintiffs' perspective, it may seem unfair
that the tactics the PSLRA urges upon them sometimes provide a
collateral benefit to the Defendants. But the Judge cannot
penalize a plaintiff for doing precisely what the statute
commands.  Judge therefore appointed DIG as the Lead Plaintiff.

DIG has selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as the lead
counsel and this designation will be approved.  Levi & Korsinsky
LLP has experience as lead counsel in securities class action
lawsuits, including lawsuits in this district.  The Judge
approved the Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Tigar granted DIG's Motion for Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and denied
Pontiac's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval
of Selection of Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/soWxdv from Leagle.com.

Inchen Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Inchen Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Depomed Investor Group, "Lead Plantiff", Plaintiff, represented
by Adam Christopher McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, Adam Marc Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Depomed, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon --
michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo -- becky.girolamo@wilmerhale.com -
- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

Arthur Joseph Higgins, Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A.
Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

James A. Schoeneck, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

August J. Moretti, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Michael A. Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall &
Dorr LLP.

Brian Shrader, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

John Lucas, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Joe Bojues, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

Thomas J. Bruch, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Steven Robert Farrar, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Dennis J. Seltzer, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

David Weinstein, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Gerald Ross, Interested Party, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Argues in Hip Implant Case Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Kirkland &
Ellis partner Paul Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- had
just begun listing a host of evidentiary errors that led to a
$502 million hip implant verdict against his client, DePuy
Orthopaedics, when he got this unexpected question from 5th
Circuit Judge Jerry Smith:

"You're not making a request this would be retried to a different
district judge.  I assume you're not suggesting that the errors
are serious enough that we'd consider that alternative, which is
rarely granted?"

That opened a window, at least a crack, in favor of Johnson &
Johnson, DePuy's parent corporation.  The New Jersey-based
company has long criticized U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade for
establishing jurisdiction over consolidated trials in 9,300 cases
in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Texas.
Those trials have lead to other verdicts of $1.04 billion and
$247 million in November.

Mr. Smith, if you recall, wrote a 5th Circuit opinion in October
in a separate case finding Kinkeade had committed "grave error"
in establishing jurisdiction in those trials.

But in oral arguments in December, Mr. Smith said he wasn't sure
he could reassign the case if nobody asked him to.  In a
supplemental brief, Mr. Clement wrote that he could. "In short,
the court has the power to reassign a case sua sponte and has
done so in practice."

Check out the oral arguments between Mr. Clement and plaintiffs
attorneys Ken Starr and Mark Lanier.  The name of Saddam Hussein
comes up a lot, and at one point a panelist remarked: "I feel
like I'm going to have to get some popcorn." [GN]


DISNEY STORE: "Wolz" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA WOLZ, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. DISNEY STORE USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-24697-RNS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Disney operated as an organization
which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers
from throughout the United States and from outside of the United
States, and also provides its services for goods sold and
transported from across state lines of other states, and Disney
obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources.

While employed by Disney, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
40 hours per week without being compensated at a rate of not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was
employed. Plaintiff was employed as an assistant manager,
performing the same or similar duties as that of those other
similarly situated assistant managers whom Plaintiff observed
working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff was paid approximately $29.10 per hour, but was
required to work through her breaks without pay. This means that
when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, she was not
paid $43.65 per hour ($29.10 x 1.5), and when Plaintiff did not
work more than 40 hours per week, she was not paid $29.10 per
hour, or at least the corresponding minimum wage in Florida.

Disney did not properly compensate Plaintiff for working through
her breaks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


DNC TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Abrica Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ISABEL ABRICA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SVCS, a
business entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES TRAVEL
HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC. aka DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES,
INC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC688385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges failed to pay all wages due to discharged
and quitting employees, failed to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging
their duties, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to maintain required records, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. As a direct and proximate
result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, the Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of
earnings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia R. Khalil, Esq.
          Irina Kirnosova, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
                  ikirnosova@maternlawgroup.com


DOLCE INTERNATIONAL: Toler Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLIANDREA TOLER, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOLCE INTERNATIONAL - SAN
JOSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321136 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor
Code and the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in receiving
minimum wages for all hours worked, minimum wages for missed meal
and rest period premium pay, and accurate itemized wage
statements.

Dolce International/San Jose is a hotels and motel located in San
Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Harbin"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Knoxville, issued an Order granting approval of
recommended Class Action Settlement in the case captioned DUSTIN
HARBIN and JIMMY PRUITT, on behalf of themselves and the class
defined herein, Plaintiffs, v. EMERGENCY COVERAGE CORPORATION and
ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-125
(E.D. Tenn.).

Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that the parties' joint
motion for an order conditionally certifying class and granting
preliminary approval of class settlement agreement be granted.

The matter is certified as a class action for settlement purposes
only on behalf of the following class: (a) All persons sued by
Defendants; (b) in the General Session Court of Hamblen County,
Tennessee; (c) that had garnishments issued against their wages
that included amounts of post-judgment interest or fees that
exceeded the amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) that
made payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful
garnishments issued to their employers by garnishments of wages
or direct payment to the clerk between March 16, 2013, and ending
on April 5, 2016.

The Court appoints Alan C. Lee, Peter A. Holland, and Scott C.
Borison as Class Counsel.

The Court designates Dustin Harbin and Jimmy Pruitt as the
representatives of the Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycupp82y from Leagle.com.

Dustin Harbin, Plaintiff, represented by Alan C. Lee, Alan C.
Lee, Attorney, 400 W 1st North St, Ste A Morristown, TN 37814
Dustin Harbin, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Holland --
peter@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm, P.C. & Scott C.
Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLC, 5500 Buckeystown Pike. Frederick,
Maryland 21703.

Jimmy Pruitt, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Holland, The
Holland Law Firm, P.C., Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLC. &
Alan C. Lee, Alan C. Lee, Attorney.

Emergency Coverage Corporation, Defendant, represented by John M.
Lawhorn -- jlawhorn@fmsllp.com -- Frantz, McConnell & Seymour,
LLP.

Account Resolution Team, Inc., Defendant, represented by John M.
Lawhorn, Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP.


EQUIFAX INC: Two NH Data Breach Suits Transferred to Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two federal lawsuits filed in
New Hampshire against credit monitoring company Equifax over a
massive data breach have been transferred to the court in
Georgia.

Numerous lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed
against Atlanta-based Equifax.  The lawsuits filed in New
Hampshire request a trial and seek a lifetime of credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services from a
different company.  They were among 76 civil actions transferred
to the Northern District of Georgia for consolidation.

The plaintiffs and others suffered as a result of the breach and
had to pay for credit reports, credit freezes, monitoring
services and other protective measures following the release of
their personal information.

The breach exposed the information of 145 million Americans. [GN]


ERIE INDEMNITY: Breaches Subscriber's Agreement, Ritz Says
----------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA RITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, the Plaintiff, v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, J.
RALPH BORNEMAN, JR., TERRENCE W. CAVANAUGH, EUGENE C. CONNELL,
LUANN DATESH, JONATHAN HIRT HAGEN, THOMAS B. HAGEN, C. SCOTT
HARTZ, BRIAN A. HUDSON, SR., CLAUDE C. LILLY, III, GEORGE R.
LUCORE, THOMAS W. PALMER, MARTIN P. SHEFFIELD, RICHARD L. STOVER,
ELIZABETH A. HIRT VORSHECK and ROBERT C. WILBURN, the Defendants,
and ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, the Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00340 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages
for herself and the Class for harm suffered as a result of the
Defendants' utter disregard of their fiduciary duties while
serving as the attorney-in-fact for the Class as well as for the
breaching the Subscriber's Agreement by charging unwarranted and
excessive Management Fees in violation of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

Erie Indemnity Company provides management services to the member
companies of the Erie Insurance Group, which includes Erie
Insurance Exchange, Flagship City Insurance Company, Erie
Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company,
Erie Insurance Company of New York and Erie Family Life[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Robin Winchester, Esq.
          KESSLER, TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19807
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

               - and -

          William M. Radcliffe, Esq.
          RADCLIFFE & DEHAAS, LLP
          2 West Main Street, Suite 700
          Uniontown, PA 15401
          Telephone: (724) 439 3900
          Facsimile: (724) 439 3335


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Labaton Expands Securities Case Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on
December 18, 2017, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of its client Tampa Maritime Association-International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan ("TMA-ILA") against
General Electric Company ("General Electric" or the "Company")
(NYSE:GE), and certain of its senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants").  The action, which is captioned Tampa Maritime
Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan
v. General Electric Company, No. 1:17-cv-09888 (S.D.N.Y.),
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of General
Electric between December 15, 2016 and November 10, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint expands the class period asserted in the related
consolidated action against General Electric, captioned Hachem v.
General Electric Company, No. 1:17-cv-08457-JMF (S.D.N.Y.)
("Hachem"), which is presently pending before the Honorable Jesse
M. Furman.  Pursuant to the notice published on November 1, 2017
in connection with the filing of the first-filed Hachem action,
as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, investors wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the
securities actions pending against General Electric are required
to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no later
than January 2, 2018.

General Electric is a multi-national conglomerate with operations
that are organized across various business segments, including GE
Power, GE Capital, and Oil & Gas.  The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, General Electric failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's various operating segments, including the
Power and Oil & Gas segments, were underperforming Company
projections, with order drops, excess inventories and increased
costs; (2) GE Capital's long-term care reserves were understated
by billions of dollars in violation of applicable accounting and
insurance regulations; (3) by materially under-reserving for
liabilities related to long-term care policies, General Electric
was able to maintain cash flow for its quarterly dividend
payments; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, General Electric
materially overstated its earnings and cash flows during the
Class Period.

On October 20, 2017, the Company disclosed disappointing results
in the Power segment and revealed elevated claims within GE
Capital's legacy insurance business, forcing the Company to
suspend the payment of approximately $ 3 billion of additional GE
Capital dividends to General Electric.  On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $ 1.51 per share, or nearly 7 percent,
to close at $ 22.32 per share on October 23, 2017.  Thereafter,
on November 13, 2017, General Electric shocked the market by
slashing its annual dividend in half, from $ 0.96 to $ 0.48 per
share, as the Company confirmed that GE Capital would not be
paying a dividend to General Electric in 2018.  On this news,
General Electric's stock price fell $ 1.47 per share, or over 7
percent, to close at $ 19.02 per share on November 13, 2017.

If you purchased or acquired General Electric securities during
the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able
to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion
papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than January 2, 2018.  The
Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as
Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If
you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you
can share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com.  You can view a copy of the
complaint online at https://is.gd/2pxwqt

TMA-ILA is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $ 2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is
built on its half-century of securities litigation experience,
more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading
industry publications.  Offices are located in New York, NY,
Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL.  More
information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
www.labaton.com [GN]


GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Chapter 11 May Stay Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Nikolova, writing for Finance Feeds, reports that the
former and current executives of Global Brokerage Inc
(NASDAQ:GLBR), known in the past as FXCM Inc, may see one of the
big lawsuits against them stayed as a result of the company's
filing for Chapter 11.

The case in question is the so-called "mega lawsuit" brought by
investors, such as 683 Capital Partners, LP and Shipco Transport
Inc.  The case, captioned "In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a
FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation" (1:17-cv-00916), is a class
action on behalf of investors in the public securities of FXCM
Inc.  The action is brought on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded FXCM securities from March 15, 2012 to
February 6, 2017.

The plaintiffs accuse the broker and a number of its senior
executives and employees of violations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that FXCM misled its clients, investors and
the regulators by claiming that the company's "No Dealing Desk"
("NDD") platform would provide its customers with a Forex trading
platform that was free of conflicts of interest.  As a result of
the investigations by the CFTC and NFA, the allegations and
penalties, the price of FXCM's stock dropped sharply, losing more
than half of its value and damaging investors.

Whereas the case had been gradually progressing at the New York
Southern District Court, the Chapter 11 move by Global Brokerage
changed the development.  The bankruptcy filing has already
triggered an automatic stay, at least insofar as this lawsuit was
brought against Defendant Global Brokerage.

But the stay may also apply to individual defendants, as the
latest court filings show.  On Friday, December 15, 2017, Judge
Ronnie Abrams signed an order concerning the individual
defendants in this case: Dror Niv, William Ahdout, David Sakhai,
Eduard Yusupov, Janelle G. Lester, Robert Lande, Omit Niv, Nicola
Santoro, Jr., Margaret Deverell, David S. Sassoon, Kenneth
Grossman, James Brown, Ryan Silverman, Arthur Gruen, Robin E.
Davis, Eric LeGoff, and Bryan Reyhani.

The plaintiffs and individual defendants in this case are
directed to submit a joint letter, no later than December 29,
2017, indicating whether this case should proceed against the
individual defendants, or whether the entire case should be
stayed.

Putting it bluntly, less than a year after the findings made by
US authorities concerning FXCM and its NDD model became public,
triggering the bans on the company and Mr Niv from the US market,
Global Brokerage files for bankruptcy and this actually helps the
company and its top executives alleviate the litigation burden on
them.

There are a number of other cases against Global Brokerage in the
United States -- the proceedings against the broker have been
stayed and we are curious to see whether the individual
defendants there will also be given a chance to make use of a
stay. [GN]


GOSCH AUTO: Sued for Wrongfully Classifying Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman and Jackie Charniga, writing for Fixed Ops Journal,
report that a Southern California dealership group wrongfully
classified its service advisers under state labor law to avoid
paying them for overtime, meal breaks that they missed and rest
periods, a proposed class action lawsuit alleges.

Jim Wolleson, a Gosch Auto Group service adviser from August 2015
to August 2017, filed the case in Riverside County Superior Court
on behalf of all service advisers who worked for the company
during the past four years.  The group sells Ford, Chevrolet,
Hyundai and Toyota vehicles at five dealerships in Hemet and
Temecula, Calif.

The suit claims all the group's service advisers were
misclassified as exempt from overtime wages and other
requirements.  It asserts that the company had a "uniform policy
and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees
for all their unpaid overtime and their missed meal breaks and
unpaid rest periods."

Tim Gosch, the general manager of Gosch Toyota in Hemet, said he
couldn't comment.

The trigger for the suit was a recent state appeals court
decision that employees paid on commission "must be separately
compensated for rest periods," said Mr. Wolleson's lawyer,
Nicholas De Blouw of La Jolla, Calif.

Mr. De Blouw predicted similar class action lawsuits against
other dealerships on behalf of service advisers and F&I managers.
"This is just the beginning," he said. [GN]


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration in the case captioned MEGAN STONE and
CHRISTINE CAROSI, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C16-5383 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs Megan Stone and Christine Carosi's filed a motion to
remand.  The Court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the Court's conclusion is manifest error. The Ninth Circuit
instructs district courts to evaluate CAFA jurisdiction based on
the reality of what is at stake in the litigation. While
Plaintiffs are correct that the Court could easily dispose of any
coverage issue or, at the conclusion of the matter, limit such
fees, the potential for an award of fees at the time of removal
are all the fees associated with this highly contested class
action. As such, an award of $1.34 million for an attorney with
an hourly rate of $900 and with potential multipliers is arguably
reasonable.

The Court stands by its conclusion that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yba59eyl from Leagle.com.

Megan Stone, individually and as the representatives of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M.
Hansen, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, 1821 Dock St Ste 103,
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Megan Stone, individually and as the representatives of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott P.
Nealey -- snealey@nealeylaw.com -- NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice.
Christine Carosi, individually and as the representatives of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M.
Hansen, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN & Scott P. Nealey,
NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrea
H. McNeely -- amcneely@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
LLP, Joshua Grabel -- jgrabel@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
CHRISTIE, pro hac vice, Leland Clay Selby, Jr. --
Clay@LedgerSquareLaw.com -- LEDGER SQUARE LAW P.S. & Stephanie L.
Bloomfield -- sbloomfield@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
LLP.


HANLEES AUTO: Parr Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD PARR individually, as a representative
aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HANLEES AUTO GROUP; HANLEES DAVIS,
INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES ACTION DA VIS TOYOTA;
HANLEES FREEMONT, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES
FREEMONT HYUNDAI; HANLEES HILLTOP, INC., California Corporation,
dba HANLEES HILLTOP TOYOTA; HANLEES NAPA, INC., a California
Corporation, dba HANLEES NAPA SUBARU AND VOLKSWAGEN; HANLEES
SEVEN, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP
HYUNDAI; DKD OF NAPA, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES
CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM OF NAPA; DKD OF HILLTOP, INC., a
California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP BUICK GMC; DOHAN,
INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES CHEVROLET; 24 11
LEEHAN, INC., a California Corporation, dba HANLEES HILLTOP
NISSAN; LHH, INC., a 25 California Corporation, dba HANLEES
HILLTOP 26 11 VOLKSWAGEN; DONG K. LEE; KYONG S. HAN; DONG I. LEE;
and DOES 1 through 20, the Defendants, Case No. RG17887089 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendants did not
want to pay premium wages (for missed meal and rest breaks) to
their auto dealership employees.  But instead of simply
permitting their employees to take meal and rest breaks,
Defendants achieved their goal by falsifying time records to make
it appear that employees were getting breaks, even though
Defendants knew they were not.

In addition to denying their employees proper meal and rest
breaks, Defendants engaged in numerous other California Labor
Code violations, including failing to compensate employees for
all hours worked, failing to properly pay overtime compensation,
and engaging in false and fraudulent recordkeeping practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged -- and
continue to engage -- in a pattern of violations of IWC Wage
Order 4-2001 and 7-20012 and of numerous Labor Code sections. In
addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties under PAGA
against Defendants for these violations as a representative of
all current and former aggrieved employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398 0911
          E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
                  bsc@phillaw.com


HEAVY WEIGHT: Court Awards $133K Attorney's Fees in "Maldonaldo"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned Martin Maldonado and Julio Lainez, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Heavy
Weight Transport, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-08838-CAS(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Court finally certifies the following Class:

   All California residents who are or have been employed as
truck drivers by Heavy Weight Transport, Inc. in California
during the Class Period from November 29, 2012 through August 15,
2017.

The Court appoints Plaintiffs Martin Maldonado and Julio Lainez
as Class Representatives.

The Court appoints Craig J. Ackermann and Sam Vahedi of Ackermann
& Tilajef, P.C., and Julian Hammond of HammonLaw, P.C. as counsel
for the Class.

The Court grants a Class Representative Enhancement award of
$7,500 to each Plaintiff, for a total allocation of $15,000.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Attorneys' request for an award of
Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $113,333.33 and
costs in the amount of $7,500.00.

The $8,000 designated for payment to CPT Group, Inc., the
Settlement Administrator, is fair and reasonable. The Court
grants final approval of, and orders the Parties to make the
payment to the Settlement Administrator in accordance with the
Settlement.

The Court approves the allocation of $5,000 of the Settlement as
payment for penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorney Generals Act (PAGA), and further approves of payment of
$3,750 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for its
portion of the PAGA penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
sections 2698-2699.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya6nrurc from Leagle.com.

Martin Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Vahedi -
sv@svalawyers.com -- Ackermann and Tilajef PC.

Martin Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Cherniak --
ari.cherniak@gmail.com -- HammondLaw PC, Julian Ari Hammond --
jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya --
ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLawPC & Craig J.
Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann and Tilajef
PC.

Julio Lainez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Vahedi, Ackermann and
Tilajef PC, Ari Cherniak, HammondLaw PC, Julian Ari Hammond,
HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya, HammondLawPC & Craig J.
Ackermann, Ackermann and Tilajef PC.

Heavy Weight Transport, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Gregory A. Garbacz -- ggarbacz@klinedinst.law.com
-- Klinedinst PC & Andrea F. Oxman -- AOxman@klinedinstlaw.com --
Klinedinst PC.


HEFFLER RADETICH: Averts Bank of America Investors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that Heffler Radetich &
Saitta, an accounting firm that was sued after it distributed $6
million in settlement funds meant for Bank of America Corp.
investors to a fraudster, was able to get out of a class action
brought by the investors on Dec. 15 after U.S. District Judge Jan
DuBois changed his mind about the class being entitled to an
extension on the statute of limitations. [GN]


HF MANAGEMENT: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended "Thind" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KANWARPREET THIND, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 9539 (LGS)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The Named Plaintiff initiated the putative collective and class
action on Dec. 3, 2014.  He filed the First Amended Complaint
("FAC") on Feb. 20, 2015.  The FAC alleged that the Named
Plaintiff worked for Healthfirst as a Facilitated Enroller ("FE")
from Aug. 24, 2009 to Jan. 24, 2012, and as a Manager for Sales
("Manager") from Jan. 25, 2012, to Aug. 21, 2014.  The FAC
alleged six causes of action based on alleged violations of Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  In
an Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the
FAC's causes of action based on Healthfirst's alleged failure to
pay the minimum wage and to pay wages in accordance with the
agreed terms of employment under NYLL.

On July 31, 2015, the Court granted the Named Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of two FLSA collectives --
Collective A and Collective B -- as to the FAC's FLSA overtime
claim only.  Collective A included all current and former
Healthfirst employees who worked as Managers in the Facilitated
Enrollment Department in the three years before the filing of the
initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay.
Collective B included all current and former Healthfirst
employees who worked as FEs in the three years before the filing
of the initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay.

On May 12, 2016, the Defendant moved to decertify Collective B,
arguing that Named Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs were not
similarly situated.  In an Opinion and Order dated Dec. 9, 2016,
the Court decertified Collective B, holding that Thind cannot
demonstrate that Healthfirst employed a single, uniform policy of
explicitly directing Facilitated Enrollers to work off the clock
in violation of its clear written policy.

On June 19, 2017, the Named Plaintiff filed the Complaint, the
operative pleading on the motion.  On July 7, 2017, the Defendant
moved to dismiss the Complaint, alleging that the Complaint
exceeds the scope of the December 9 Opinion because it includes
allegations that are inconsistent with or contrary to what has
come out in discovery.

The Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed
because it includes allegations that the Named Plaintiff
disavowed in his June 19, 2015, deposition testimony, and
therefore, it exceeds the scope of the Court's leave to file an
amended complaint.  Specifically, it argues that the Named
Plaintiff admitted the falsity of three allegations in the
Complaint: (i) that the Named Plaintiff worked between seventy
and eight hours per week, seven days a week; (ii) that the Named
Plaintiff worked on specific days and times from Aug. 11, 2014 to
Aug. 17, 2014; and (iii) that the Named Plaintiff did not
exercise any independent authority or direct the work of any
other employees.  Judge Schofield denied the Defendant's Motion
as none of the Complaint's alleged falsities is so egregious or
material as to justify dismissing it.

First, the Judge finds that although the Complaint exaggerates
the number of overtime hours that the Named Plaintiff actually
worked, nothing in his deposition contradicts or materially
changes the Complaint's central allegation that he regularly
worked overtime hours and did not receive overtime pay.  The
Named Plaintiff consistently testified that he averaged 50 to 60
hours per week.  To the extent that the Defendant implies that
these statements constitute an admission that the Named Plaintiff
did not work any overtime hours, he says the Defendant
mischaracterizes the Named Plaintiff's testimony.

Next, the Defendant's argument that the Complaint's allegations
regarding the Named Plaintiff's Aug. 11, 2014 through Aug. 17,
2014, work schedule are false (or that they lack a "good faith"
basis) also fails.  The Named Plaintiff testified that, although
he could not remember his schedule for Aug. 11, 2014, he
remembered it at the time that he filed the initial complaint
(almost a year earlier).  The Defendant's motion omits entirely
this portion of the Named Plaintiff's testimony, which undercuts,
if not directly controverts, its claim that the Named Plaintiff
"lacked a good faith basis" for this allegation.

Lastly, Judge Schofield finds that the Named Plaintiff's
testimony regarding the nature and scope of his role as a
Healthfirst Manager is compatible with the Complaint's allegation
that the Named Plaintiff did not "exercise independent
authority."  That the Named Plaintiff confirmed that the job
description on his resume is accurate (and perhaps overstated)
does not negate the allegations in the Complaint regarding his
role as a Healthfirst Manager.  To the extent that the Complaint
exceeds the scope of the Court's leave to amend by including the
challenged allegations, the transgression is minor and the Court
will not dismiss on this ground.

Therefore, Judge Schofield denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Complaint, and denied as moot the Defendant's motion
for oral argument.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close the
motion at Docket No. 320.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/T03HBJ from Leagle.com.

Kanwarpreet Thind, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Gershbaum, Hepworth,
Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC.

Kanwarpreet Thind, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Alan Roth, Roth & Roth,
LLP, Justin Robert Marino -- jmarino@stevensonmarino.com --
Stevenson Marino LLP, Rebecca Solomon Predovan , Hepworth
Gershbaum & Roth PLLC & John Russell Stevenson --
jrs@jrstevensonlaw.com -- Stevenson Marino LLP.

Ada Wan Ying Cheung, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Carol J. Dammann, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Andrea Damour, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Yary Perez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

William Stanford, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Victoria Rubio, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Torye Perez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Satinder Kalir, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Healthfirst, Inc., doing business as Healthfirst, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Paul Marks -- amarks@dorflaw.com -- Dorf &
Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine -- slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee
LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp -- akarp@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP &
Scott B. Klugman -- sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP.

HF Management Services, LLC, doing business as Healthfirst,
Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Marks, Dorf & Nelson LLP,
Seth L. Levine, Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp, Levine Lee LLP
& Scott B. Klugman, Levine Lee LLP.

Healthfirst PHSP, Inc., doing business as Healthfirst, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Paul Marks, Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L.
Levine, Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp, Levine Lee LLP & Scott
B. Klugman, Levine Lee LLP.


HTL ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff,
v. HTL ENTERPRISES, INC., dba WINGSTOP INC., and HUNG VAN,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03908 (S.D. Tex.,
Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Wingstop paid Rodriguez, and other
workers like him the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including many hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. Wingstop also
failed to pay Rodriguez, and other workers like him for hours
worked, including overtime hours, in a work week.

Wingstop, incorporated on March 18, 2015, is franchisor and
operator of restaurants that specializes in cooked-to-order,
hand-sauced and tossed chicken wings. The Company operates
through two segments: Franchise and Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeralynn Manor, Esq.
          THE MANOR LAW FIRM P.C.
          S.D. Tex. No. 378163
          4504 Caroline Street
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 225 2667
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8112
          E-mail: jmanor@manorlaw.net


JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SCOMA
CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, and
NAVEEN MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM (M.D.
Fla.).

This is a junk fax case.  Defendants transmitted by fax machine
an unsolicited advertisement to Scoma. The fax consists of a one-
page document describing a product of Jackson Hewitt Tax
Services. Scoma alleges that it had not given Defendants
permission or express invitation to send the fax, and that
Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles to it
and others without the opt-out language and notice required by 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200.

To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

To state a claim for violation of the TCPA, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) the fax is an advertisement; (2) the fax was
unsolicited; and (3) the defendant(s) sent the fax to a telephone
facsimile machine using a telephone facsimile machine, computer,
or other device.

The Court finds persuasive a recent case from another division of
this court, Senior Care Group, Inc. v. Red Parrot Distribution,
Inc., No. 8:17-cv-760-T-27TGW, 2017 WL 3288288 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1,
2017), a TCPA case featuring the same plaintiffs' attorneys as
this case and a complaint with similar allegations. In Red
Parrot, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss upon
concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged defendants
were senders of the fax at issue. There, the court noted that the
2008 Junk Fax Order also explains that the sender does not need
to be the individual who actually sent the fax, only that the
sender is the benefitting party.

Within that framework, the court determined that the plaintiff's
allegations that the fax was unsolicited and an advertisement
prominently displaying Defendant's name, the goods and services
that it purveys, and its contact information, in addition to
allegations that the fax was sent by or on behalf of the
Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the
Defendants during the Class Period, satisfied the statutory
definition of sender and its complaint survived dismissal.
Given the similarities between the allegations in Red Parrotand
here, the Court agrees with the reasoning of its colleague and
finds that, at this juncture, where it must accept all factual
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of Scoma, the SAC is sufficient to survive the motions to
dismiss.

Jackson Hewitt again argues that the class allegations do not
comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because they merely recite portions of the TCPA
and allege wrongdoing upon information and belief providing no
factual support.

To satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must give defendants fair
notice of a plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it
rests. While detailed factual allegations are unnecessary, vague
allegations of unlawful harm, without more, are insufficient.
The Complaint's allegations satisfy this standard.

Here, although the SAC again pleads on information and belief,
recites portions of the statute, and contains allegations of
years of unauthorized faxes sent to the putative class members,
it also includes additional allegations beyond the "bare bones"
allegations of the prior complaint. In addressing that prior
complaint, the Court noted: "To be clear, the Court is not
deciding the propriety of class certification at this stage.
Rather, because Scoma will be permitted to file a second amended
complaint to address the deficiencies the Court will also direct
Scoma to include additional factual information to support the
basis for the proposed class, if available."

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated Dec. 11, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/5uPrys from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

Naveen Mathur, Defendant, represented by Jarred D. Duke, Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney, PC & Fowler White Boggs.


JAVA JOE'S: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in Southern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Java Joe's
Fundraising, LLC. The case is styled as Bais Yaakov of Spring
Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Java Joe's Fundraising, LLC. and Michael DeLuca,
Defendants, Case No1: 7:18-cv-00049 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018).

Java Joe's Fundraising, LLC is a Gourmet coffee and coffee
fundraising.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Wage-Theft Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports that the group
of workers challenging Jimmy John's over wage-theft allegations
in a class-action lawsuit can proceed with their legal battle.
The workers scored a court victory when a Chicago judge ruled
they could continue their case against the Champaign-based chain.
James John Liautaud's chain is accused of misrepresenting how
much time its hourly employees work to dodge overtime costs and
minimum wage violations. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with $15-Mil. Pelvic Mesh Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a jury came
back on Dec. 14 with a $15 million pelvic mesh verdict against
Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon division in the second bellwether
case in New Jersey state court, where 2,000 pelvic mesh cases are
pending against Ethicon.

It's a big win for Adam Slater -- aslater@mazieslater.com -- of
Mazie Slater, who got an $11 million verdict back in 2014 in the
first pelvic mesh trial in New Jersey against Ethicon.  Mr.
Slater noted that the award included $10 million in punitive
damages.  With the second case over, he said, "every single
important legal ruling has been made, so trying these cases going
forward is going to be very streamlined." [GN]


LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA: Plumbers Fund Asks Court to Quash Subpoena
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO; RECIPROCITY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED ASSOCIATION JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO;
TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND;
RECIPROCITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Movants;
ROBERT BRADLEY NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA, JR.,
ROBERT E. BUCKLEY, JR., ARMAND KILIJIAN; SCOTT STRAWBRIDGE; FRED
NURISSO; DANIEL ORSOT; MILT GOODMAN; STEVE JENNINGS; WILLIAM
BLACKWELL; FRANK REARDON; JOHN CHIARENZA; TONY GUTZZETTA; R.J.
FERRARI, in their current or former capacities as trustees or
fiduciaries of the United Association Local 38 Defined Benefit
Pension Plan; PETER MACHI, in his capacity as administrator of
the United Association Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-mc-80168-JSC (D.C., Dec. 22, 2017), the
Movants ask the Court for an order quashing subpoena to produce
documents, information or objects or to permit inspection of
Premises in a Civil Action, served on each party on April 20,
2017, that was issued by the Defendants in the case of Norris v.
Mazzola Jr., Case No. 15-cv-4962 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct 28, 2015)
(Norris Action), returnable in the District of Columbia on May 1,
2017.[BN]

Attorneys for Movants:

          Louis P. Malone III, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          4748 Wisconsin Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 362 0041
          Facsimile: (202) 237 1200
          E-mail: Imalone@odonoghuelaw.com


LEANING TREE: Stern & Monahan Sue over Rental Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STERN & ANN MONAHAN, Individually And As Representatives of
a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. LEANING
TREE CHUTE LLC & RESIDE LIVING LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2017-CH-17101 (in the Circuit Court Of Cook County, Ill., Dec.
28, 2017), seeks to recover damages causes by Defendant's
defective rental agreement.

This class action complaint is brought pursuant to the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-12-170.
Pursuant to Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-010, the RLTO is to be
"liberally construed and applied to promote its policies and
purposes."

The Plaintiffs were tenants at 3170 N. Sheridan Rd., Unit 1208,
Chicago, Illinois 60657 (Sheridan Building or 3170 Sheridan). The
Sheridan building is a large residential apartment building in
Chicago containing over 300 residential rental dwelling units.

The Defendant was an owner, lessor, and landlord of 3170
Sheridan. The Reside Living LLC, served as lessor, authorized
management of the building, and agent for the building's owner at
3170 Sheridan. The Defendant Reside Living LLC prepared and
offered rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and
tenants, on behalf of owners, and under the control and at the
direction of the owners. Additionally Reside Living, collected
rent and fees directly from tenants and deposited rent received
into their business account(s).

Collecting and depositing monthly rent and deposits, and
preparing, offering, and executing rental agreements and renewals
to Chicago tenants, including required disclosures, is within the
scope of Reside Living's duties and responsibilities as building
management, lessor, and/or agent at the Sheridan Building.

On June 5, 2016, Defendant Reside Living LLC offered Plaintiffs a
13 page rental agreement for their unit at the Sheridan Building.
As management and business practice, Defendants do not provide
Chicago tenants at the Sheridan Building with the most current
RLTO Summary and Separate Summary that is made for inspection and
copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of
Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and
renewed, as mandated by Section 5-12-170. As management and
business practice, Defendant Reside Living LLC does not provide
Chicago tenants at its managed buildings with the RLTO Summary
and Separate Summary that is made for inspection and copying by
the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when
rental agreements are initially offered and renewed, as mandated
by Section 5-12-170. Defendants have offered the same rental
agreement with the same defective summaries to all of its Chicago
tenants, within the last two years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 924 0278
          Facsimile: (312) 650 824l

               - and -

          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775 1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256 2055


LEIDOS HEALTH: Bid to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEIDOS
HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03237-RLM-DML (S.D.
Ind.), Judge Debra McVicker Lynch of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted
in part and denied in part Leidos' motion to stay conditional
certification briefing.

The case was recently transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The Plaintiff's complaint
alleges that Leidos violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by misclassifying as independent contractors, and on
that basis failing to pay overtime wages to, persons it hires to
provide training services to Leidos' healthcare clients in the
use of electronic recordkeeping systems.  The Plaintiff seeks to
represent himself and "similarly situated" persons in a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The Plaintiff
also alleges that Leidos violated a Pennsylvania wage statute by
misclassifying employees and failing to pay required overtime and
seeks to represent a Rule 23 class for the state law claim.

After the transfer, the Plaintiff filed his motion for
conditional certification of a Section 216(b) class.  Leidos asks
the Court to stay briefing and ruling on that motion until the
parties conduct discovery pertinent to the Section 216(b)
certification issue (and discovery pertinent to a decision
whether a Rule 23 class should be certified for the state law
claim(s)).  It posits that allowing a period of discovery will
result in a more efficiently-managed case.  The Plaintiff opposes
the motion principally on the ground that Leidos' proposal is
inconsistent with standards courts have adopted for deciding
whether an FLSA opt-in class conditionally should be certified.

Judge Lynch granted in part and denied in part Leidos' motion to
stay conditional certification briefing.  He finds that a period
of discovery is appropriate and a stay of briefing should be
imposed to accommodate that discovery.  He says Leidos is not
suggesting that full merits discovery should be conducted before
certification is addressed, but because full discovery will not
have occurred, the Court may be unable to make a final decision
about the propriety of allowing a Section 216(b) "class."  Some
discovery may appropriately be delayed, but only if the Plaintiff
has some lighter burden on the certification/notice issue.  The
Judge cannot make these determinations in a vacuum, which is why
the level of scrutiny ultimately applied will depend on the depth
and scope of the discovery that was conducted or was reasonably
available to conduct.

The Judge does not prevent the Plaintiff from arguing in response
to the Defendant's opposition to the certification of a Section
216(b) collective that sub-classes could be created or the class
could be redefined to obviate the Defendant's objections.  He
tolled the limitations period for potential opt-in Plaintiffs
until it is determined whether a collective action is certified
and, if so, the period for the Plaintiffs to opt in has expired.

Judge Lynch stayed Leidos' deadline for responding to the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notice until
April 30, 2018.  The Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion to
certify Rule 23 class(es) is April 30, 2018.  A period for
discovery focused on Section 216(b) "certification" and to
certification of Rule 23 classes is now open and it closes on
April 9, 2018.

He directed that the parties must cooperate with one another to
efficiently conduct this discovery.  They must propound initial
rounds of written discovery, if any, within 30 days of the entry
of the Order on the docket; must promptly address and attempt to
resolve any discovery disputes; and must cooperate in scheduling
any depositions so that they are completed by April 9, 2018.

The Plaintiff's reply brief on the Section 216(b) issue is due 28
days after service of Leidos' response.  Leidos' brief in
response to a Rule 23 certification motion is due 28 days after
service of the Plaintiff's opening brief, and the Plaintiff's
reply brief is due 14 days after service of the response brief.
If the Plaintiff revises, or offers to revise, the class
definitions in the reply brief(s), Leidos may seek to file a sur-
reply to address that issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9H81Xf from Leagle.com.

AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo
-- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC.

AYODEJI OSHIKOYA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza
-- apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, David Michael
Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- BLANCHARD & WALKER
PLLC, Jeffrey A. Macey -- jmacey@maceylaw.com -- MACEY SWANSON &
ALLMAN, Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com --
Kelly & Crandall PLC, Olena Savytska -- osavytska@llrlaw.com --
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice, Sarah R. Schalman-
Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. &
Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONGAGUE, P.C.

LEIDOS HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher E.
Humber -- chumber@hunton.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, &
STEWART, P.C., Christopher C. Murray --
christopher.murray@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., Michael J. Murphy -- michael.murphy@ogletree.com -
- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART & Zachary Stevens Stinson
-- zachary.stinson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Parents & Teachers Sue Over Construction Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
parents and teachers want a developer and the city of Los Angeles
to halt construction on a project adjacent to a school's
kindergarten playground, claiming toxic dust and other poisonous
contaminants will be in the air during demolition, excavation and
construction.

The 24-page class action says "toxic dust" and other poisonous
contaminants will be in the air during demolition, excavation and
construction of the project on the fence-line of a kindergarten
playground at Palms Elementary School in west Los Angeles north
of Culver City.

Filed on behalf of the students and teachers by parent and
attorney Olu K. Orange, the 24-page class action says "through
backroom deals, and meetings with politicians where parents were
specifically excluded, the city and developer have pushed the
project through the approval process -- with no environmental
impact review, no health risk analysis, and none of the standard
protective measures" for the more than 350 children or their
teachers at the Palms Elementary School near Culver City in West
Los Angeles.

LA planning director Vincent Bertoni, developer Hiro Kobayashi,
and several other city staff are named as defendants in the
federal class action, filed Dec. 15.

City Councilman Paul Koretz, whose district includes the
elementary school and development project, did not immediately
respond to an emailed request for comment.  According to the
complaint, Mr. Koretz approved the project, ignoring parents'
comments and even barring one parent from attending a community
planning meeting.  Mr. Koretz is not a party to the class action
and his office said it would not comment on pending litigation.

"The city, Bertoni, Koretz's office and developer have made a
concerted effort to deny plaintiffs and parents the right and
opportunity to know anything about the project, be heard about
it, or have the benefit of an environmental study of it," the
parents and teachers say in the complaint.

A representative for Los Angeles Unified School District -- also
not a party to the class action -- said it is working with
"Councilman Koretz's office -- as well as parents, teachers,
staff, the school community and the developer -- to ensure that
the developer will implement mitigation measures that will limit
the impacts to students and staff."

Parents, students and teachers say they will be exposed to
"increased risks of cancer and other health concerns from the
toxins emitted" by the development project.

The complaint says noise from the development will impact
learning at the elementary school, including students in its Deaf
and Hard of Hearing program.

One plaintiff, a minor named S.G., wears a hearing aid.  Sound is
controlled in the classroom with carpet, fabric on the walls and
a drop ceiling in order to reduce reverberation.  Loud sounds are
painful for students in the program, because they do not have a
chance to adjust the volume on their devices and that could cause
health concerns, according to the complaint.

The developer's attorney, Elisa Paster with Glaser Weil, said in
a statement: "Throughout the successful entitlement process,
which was conducted according to all the city's rules and
regulations, the developer has met with school leaders and city
officials.  As part of those briefings, two environmental reports
were shared which reveal the soil on the project site is not
contaminated.  As with many older buildings in the LA area, the
project will require asbestos abatement and lead paint removal by
a certified vendor.

"While the project is in its early stages, 3568 Motor LLC is
committed to working with the neighboring community, as the
project unfolds," Ms. Paster added.

But Orange says city officials, including Mr. Koretz's staff,
have made efforts to keep parents from community meetings and
voicing their opinion on the development project.

"How are you going to bar parents from attending those meetings
when children are in harm's way?" Orange said in an interview.

The claim that the community has been involved to give their
input is 100 percent false, he said.  The city did not provide
the community enough time to voice any opposition to the project,
and if they had the group would have sued sooner, he added.

Orange found out about the project along with the rest of the
community approximately a month ago.  The city's response lacks
empathy for the children at Palms Elementary School, Orange said.

"I have two children who attend Palms Elementary," Orange said,
adding, "And now I have 350 plus students."

The putative class seeks damages for violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the 14th
Amendment, and want a judge to shut the project down completely
until the proper reviews are conducted.

They also seek punitive damages from Messrs. Bertoni and
Kobayashi. [GN]


MASON TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason
Transportation Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Sabrina
Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Mason Transportation Services, Inc., K&J Auto
Logistics, Inc., and Kembert Mason, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05237-TCB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Mason Transportation is a freight and transport company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Alexander Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. THOMAS
          1800 Peachtree Street, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343 2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352 5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Fuentes" Moved to Central District of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-2178-CAB-(NLS)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California granted the
parties' Joint Motion to Transfer Case to the Central District of
California Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule.

On Oct. 24, 2017, Fuentes filed a putative class action complaint
against the Defendant in the Southern District of California
alleging various wage and hour claims against the Defendant,
including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and related
claims, along with a claim for violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA").

On Jan. 15, 2016, Duran filed a putative class action complaint
against the Defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging a
single cause of action for violation of PAGA.  The Defendant
removed the action to the Central District of California on Feb.
9, 2017.  Subsequently, on Aug. 23, 2017, a Third Amended
Complaint was filed in the Duran Action.  The third amended
complaint alleges putative class claims against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, violation of Labor Code sections 201-203,
unfair competition, and a PAGA claim.  On Oct. 27, 2017, Duran
filed a notice of pendency of other actions with the Central
District, informing the Court of the related Fuentes Action.

After becoming aware of the similarities between their suits,
Plaintiffs Fuentes and Duran agreed to consolidate their cases
and request transfer of the case to the Central District under
Case Number. 2:17-cv-01072 because the actions are related within
the meaning of Local Civil Rule 40.le and g.  Further, the
parties in the Fuentes Action stipulated, agreed and jointly
moved that it should be transferred in its entirety to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the first-to-file rule so that it can be consolidated with the
Duran Action.

Upon consideration of the factors to be contemplated in deciding
whether to apply the first to file rule, Judge Bencivengo finds
they weigh in favor of transfer of the Fuentes Action to the
Central District.  Here, Duran filed her lawsuit over a year
before Fuentes, with the governing complaint in the Central
District being filed only a couple of months before the complaint
filed in the Fuentes Action.  Furthermore, Fuentes stipulation to
join the Central District suit will result in all parties being
present in the Duran Action.  Additionally, the action in the
Central District will resolve the myriad of related, if not
identical, labor and employment issues raised in both actions.

In light of this, and the parties in the Fuentes action joining
in the current motion, the Judge chooses to apply the first-to-
file rule.  Accordingly, she granted the joint motion and
transferred the action to the Central District.  Upon transfer,
the parties may request permission from the Hon. Andre Birotte
Jr., to consolidate the matter with the Duran action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ymRGRi from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Fuentes, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D.
Rutledge -- thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com -- Law Office of Thomas D
Rutledge.


MDL 2800: "Fausz" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ella J. Fausz, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00576, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 28, 2017.  The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05503-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nina B. Couch, Esq.
          Zachary L. Taylor, Esq.
          COUCH LAW, PLLC
          2815 Taylorsville Rd., Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40205
          Telephone: (502) 550 4933

Attorneys for Equifax Information Services LLC:

          John M. Williams, Esq.
          RAJKOVICH, WILLIAMS, KILPATRICK & TRUE, PLLC
          3151 Beaumont Center Circle, Suite 375
          Lexington, KY 40513
          Telephone: (859) 245 1059
          Facsimile: (859) 245 1231


MDL 2800: "Whitfill" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jennifer Whitfill, James Carroll
Hood, Jennifer Goodman, Neva Joyce Hood, Larry Bentley Hood, and
Thristian Michel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax
Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00771,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Texas, the, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28,
2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05490-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shane Fredrick Langston, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LANGSTON PLLC
          1161 La Mirada Court
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (601) 214 0025
          Facsimile: (601) 969 1356

               - and -

          Daniel P Sullivan, Esq.
          STEPHEN C MAXWELL PC
          1300 Summitt Avenue, Suite 650
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 546 5619
          Facsimile: (817) 719 9484

               - and -

          Stephen C Maxwell, Esq.
          BAILEY & GALYEN
          1300 Summitt Avenue, Suite 650
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 417 9660
          Facsimile: (817) 719 9484

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel D. McGuire, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          2950 N. Harwood Street, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 661 5580
          Facsimile: (214) 661 5580


MDL 2800: "Wong" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie L. Wong, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00489, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05501-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 97203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020

               - and -

          Melody A. Alger, Esq.
          ALGER LAW LLC
          400 Westminster Street, Suite 401
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 277 1090
          Facsimile: (401) 277 1094


MDL 2800: "Benson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Todd Benson, on behalf of
himself, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00564, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky, the, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05502-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett H. Oppenheimer, Esq.
          BRETT H. OPPENHEIMER, PLLC
          401 Waterfront Park Place
          222 East Witherspoon Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 749 5700
          Facsimile: (502) 895 4336

               - and -

          Jason T. Ams, Esq.
          V. Brandon McGrath, Esq.
          BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP - LEXINGTON
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
          Lexington, KY 40507-1665
          Telephone: (859) 231 8500
          Facsimile: (859) 255 2742


MDL 2800: "Hebrlee" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Craig Hebrlee, Dwight Thompson,
Robert R Duncan, Susan Morin, Charles Morin, and James Hogan, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc, and Equifax Information Services
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07120, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05493-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP LLP
          611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020

               - and -

          James Henry Podolny, Esq.
          Robert R Duncan, Esq.
          DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 202 3281

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jade R. Lambert, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP-IL
          Suite 1650
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 764 6902


MDL 2800: "Smith" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Smith, John Fralick,
Michael Herrmann, and Elexis Williams, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax,
Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02183, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 28,
2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05499-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Stiles" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brijit Stiles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00144, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05504-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP-NY
          1350 Avenue of Americans, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402 5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402 5651
          E-mail: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          D. Wes Sullenger, Esq.
          BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP - PADUCAH
          410 Broadway Street
          Paducah, KY 42002-9551
          Telephone: (270) 442 4369
          Facsimile: (270) 442 4689

The Defendants are represented by:

          John M. Williams, Esq.
          RAJKOVICH, WILLIAMS, KILPATRICK & TRUE, PLLC
          3151 Beaumont Center Circle, Suite 375
          Lexington, KY 40513
          Telephone: (859) 245 1059
          Facsimile: (859) 245 1231


MDL 2800: "Campbell" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary Campbell, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01657, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec.
28, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05491-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 over 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L Thayer, Esq.
          McKean J Evans, Esq.
          PIVOTAL LAW GROUP
          IBM Building
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1217
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 340 2008


MDL 2804: Suit vs AmerisourceBergen Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Southwest Mississippi Regional
Medical Center; Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc. a corporation;
and Monroe County Healthcare Authority doing business as: Monroe
County Hospital, a corporation on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; McKesson Corporation;
Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Federick
Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Noramco Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; formerly
known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt
LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00145, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
op-45175-DAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dan Aaron Polster.

The Southwest Mississippi case is being consolidated with MDL
2804 in re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017.

In its December 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and
that centraization in the Northern District of Ohio will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The Plaintiffs in the actions before us are cities, counties and
states that allege that: (1) manufacturers of prescription opioid
medications overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks of
the use of their opioids and aggressively marketed (directly and
through key opinion leaders) these drugs to physicians, and/or
(2) distributors failed to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse
and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates.

All actions involve common factual questions about, inter alia,
the manufacturing and distributor defendants' knowledge of and
conduct regarding the alleged diversion of these prescription
opiates, as well as the manufacturers' alleged improper marketing
of such drugs. Both manufacturers and distributors are under an
obligation under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state
laws to prevent diversion of opiates and other controlled
substances into illicit channels. Plaintiffs assert that
defendants have failed to adhere to those standards, which caused
the diversion of opiates into their communities. Plaintiffs
variously bring claims for violation of RICO statutes, consumer
protection laws, state analogues to the Controlled Substances
Act, as well as common law claims such as public nuisance,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust
enrichment. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BARRETT
          P. O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834 2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834 2628


MDL 2804: Pension Fund Suit vs. Purdue Pharma Goes to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled United Food and Commercial
Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania, ON
BEHAL FOF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue
Frederick Company, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; Abbott
Laboratories, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon Inc.
Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS
Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan
PLC; Actavis plc; Actavis Inc; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Watson
Pharma, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; and Cardinal Health Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05078, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 28,
2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-op-45177-
DAP to the proceeding.

The United case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017.

In its December 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and
that centraization in the Northern District of Ohio will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The Plaintiffs in the actions before us are cities, counties and
states that allege that: (1) manufacturers of prescription opioid
medications overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks of
the use of their opioids and aggressively marketed (directly and
through key opinion leaders) these drugs to physicians, and/or
(2) distributors failed to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse
and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates.

All actions involve common factual questions about, inter alia,
the manufacturing and distributor defendants' knowledge of and
conduct regarding the alleged diversion of these prescription
opiates, as well as the manufacturers' alleged improper marketing
of such drugs. Both manufacturers and distributors are under an
obligation under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state
laws to prevent diversion of opiates and other controlled
substances into illicit channels. Plaintiffs assert that
defendants have failed to adhere to those standards, which caused
the diversion of opiates into their communities. Plaintiffs
variously bring claims for violation of RICO statutes, consumer
protection laws, state analogues to the Controlled Substances
Act, as well as common law claims such as public nuisance,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust
enrichment. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Dan Aaron
Polster. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Adam Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK
          One South Broad Street, Ste. 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568 5872

Attorneys for Cardinal Health Inc.:

          Marc S. Raspanti, Esq.
          DOUGLAS KEITH ROSENBLUM, ESQ.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          1818 Market Street, Ste. 3402
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320 6200
          Facsimile: (215) 981 00


MEE 759: "Wang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhengjian Wang, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mee 759 Inc. d/b/a Mee
Noodle Shop, Yoke Mei Chau, and "John" (first name unknown) Dong,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10192 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours
worked, minimum wages, "spread of hours" premium for each day
they worked 10 or more hours, and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT ADJUSTORS,
INC., and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 8:16CV452 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement and Notice to Class.

The matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation
of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis on the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion.  Magistrate Judge Bazis recommends that the
Court certifies the proposed class, finds the proposed settlement
fair, reasonable and adequate, and preliminarily approves the
proposed settlement pending a final fairness hearing.

Judge Bataillon has reviewed the parties' submissions and the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation and finds that the
Findings and Recommendation should be adopted.  Accordingly, the
Judge granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement and Notice to Class.

He preliminarily certified for settlement purposes the following
Settlement Class:

     a. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") Class No. 1:
The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class
defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii)
against whom the Defendants filed a county court collection
complaint in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Plaintiff's
Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv)
which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during
the period one year prior to the date of filing the action.

     b. FDCPA Class No. 2: The action is brought as a class
action on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with
addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom the Defendants sent, or caused
to be sent Requests for Admissions in the form of Exhibit C
attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or
household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the
date of filing the action.

     c. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act Class ("NCPA") Class No.
1: The action is brought as a class action on behalf of a class
defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii)
against whom the Defendants filed a county court collection
complaint in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Plaintiff's
Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv)
which was for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during
the period four years prior to the date of filing the action.

     d. NCPA Class No. 2: The action is brought as a class action
on behalf of a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses
in Nebraska (ii) to whom the Defendants sent, or caused to be
sent Requests for Admissions in the form of Exhibit C attached to
the Plaintiff's Complaint (iii) in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt (iv) which was for personal, family, or household
purposes (v) during the period four years prior to the date of
filing the action.

Judge Bataillon preliminarily approved the proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement pending a final fairness hearing and
approved the Proposed Class Notice.  Defendant Pansing, Hogan,
Ernst and Bachman, L.L.P., is directed to cause the Notice,
through a claims administrator, to be delivered to Class Members
by Mail, based on address information gathered from business
records of the Defendants, and subsequent search of each name and
address in the National Change of Address database.

The Judge appointed Plaintiff Taylor as the class representative;
and Pam Car and William Reinbrecht of the law firm Car &
Reinbrecht, P.C. LLO, and Tregg Lunn of the Law Office of Tregg
Lunn, as the class counsel.

A final fairness hearing is set for May 17, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Ydvm7Y from Leagle.com.

Jannette Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car --
pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Jannette Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tregg R. Lunn --
tregg@tregglunnlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN & William L.
Reinbrecht -- billr205@gmail.com -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Merchants Credit Adjustors, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER,
FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin -- smullin@spencerfane.com --
SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM.

Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., Defendant, represented
by Lauren R. Goodman -- lgoodman@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH,
NORTH LAW FIRM & William F. Hargens -- whargens@mcgrathnorth.com
-- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Alston" Suit in D. of South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Alston and Darius
Reid, individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Midland Credit Management Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00014-DCC (D. S.C., January 3, 2018).

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.
MCM provides flexible payment plans and financial education
tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chauntel Demetrius Bland, Esq.
   Chauntel Bland
   463 Regency Park Drive
   Columbia, SC 29210
   Tel: (803) 319-6262
   Email: chauntel.bland@yahoo.com


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Feb. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Notice Administrator, on behalf of Duane Morris LLP

Legal Notice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-md-02311

If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership That Purchased
Vehicles or Bought Certain Parts for a Vehicle in the U.S. Since
2000 You Could Receive Money from Settlements of Class Actions

Lawsuits involving the prices of certain vehicle component parts
have been settled with a Defendant in various class actions in
this litigation ("Settling Defendant"). The Settling Defendant is
identified below. The cases are separate class actions within the
lead case known as In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation,
12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), which is currently before United States
District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

You may be part of a class action settlement if you are a Truck
and/or Equipment dealership that indirectly purchased certain
component parts and/or vehicles for resale or lease containing
these parts ("Dealer") in the District of Columbia or one or more
of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

This Settlement may affect your rights. Read on for more
information.

What Are The Lawsuits About?

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to
unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle component
parts. As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who
purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing
those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as
replacement parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant
or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a
Defendant may have paid more than they should have. Although the
Settling Defendant has agreed to settle, the Settling Defendant
does not agree that it engaged in any wrongdoing or is liable or
owes any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet
decided who is right.

The Court has appointed Duane Morris LLP as interim class counsel
("Class Counsel") in these lawsuits to represent your dealership
and all other members of the class actions. Your dealership will
not be charged directly by these lawyers, and any fees that they
are paid will come from any settlements or recovery in these
lawsuits. If your dealership wants to be represented by its own
lawyer, it may hire one at its own expense.

Who's Included In The Settlement?

Your dealership is part of the Settlement if it is a Truck and
Equipment Dealer and falls within the definition of the
settlement class ("Settlement Class") approved by Judge Battani.
The class definition is set forth in the full length Notice,
which is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.  The term
"Truck and Equipment Dealer" or "Truck and Equipment Dealership"
means an entity or person authorized to engage in the business of
selling or dealing in Trucks and/or Equipment at retail in the
United States. A list of the parts included in this Settlement
and the manufacturer can be found at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.  If approved by the Court, the
Settlement would release claims any class members may have as to
all Vehicle Parts, including Starters and Alternators, as defined
in the Settlement Agreement.

Who Is The Settling Defendant?

The Settling Defendant is Mitsubishi Electric Corporation,
Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric
Automotive America, Inc. (collectively, "Settling Defendant" or
"Mitsubishi Electric").  A list of the Defendants, their
affiliates, and the alleged co-conspirators for each case
involving the parts described in the Settlement Class definitions
and settlement agreements is available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

Generally, you are included if, at any time between January 1,
2000 and September 12, 2017, you were a dealer of heavy-duty
(Class 8) trucks, medium-duty (Class 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) trucks,
buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining
equipment, agricultural equipment (including ATVs designed and/or
marketed for agricultural use), railway vehicles, materials
handling vehicles, and other similar vehicles ("Trucks and/or
Equipment") that:  (a) purchased Trucks and/or Equipment
containing a Starter or Alternator which was manufactured or sold
by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-
conspirator of a Defendant;; and/or (b) indirectly purchased a
Starter or Alternator which was manufactured or sold by a
Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator
of a Defendant as a replacement part.  Indirectly means you
bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other than the
manufacturer of the part.

The specific definition of who is included in the Settlement
Class is set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the
Settlement Class and the Settling Defendant. That Settlement
Agreement, and the related Complaint are accessible on the
website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

The Settlement Funds amount to $1.3 million. Detailed information
about the Settlement and the parts involved can be found in the
full-length Notice, which is available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The amount of money your
dealership may receive, if any, will depend upon where the
dealership purchased the affected vehicles or component parts,
the type and quantity of vehicles and parts your dealership
purchased in the states listed above and the District of
Columbia, and the total number of claims made by eligible Truck
and Equipment Dealers.

What Are My Rights And Options?

1.  Opt Your Dealership Out of the Settlement

If your dealership purchased any of the parts, or vehicles
containing those parts, discussed above and listed in the
Settlement Class definitions in the states listed in this Notice
or the District of Columbia and does not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement, your dealership must exclude itself ("opt
out") in a writing postmarked by February 14, 2018, or it will
not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Settling Defendant
(including all related entities covered by the release in the
Settlement Agreement) about the legal claims settled in the
Settlement Agreement.

If your dealership submits a valid and timely request for
exclusion / opt out, it will not share in the proceeds of that
Settlement, and it will not be bound by the judgment. To be
valid, the request for exclusion / opt out must follow the
instructions set forth in the full-length Notice and be
postmarked by February 14, 2018.  The full instructions and
requirements for opting out may be viewed at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

2.  Object to the Settlement

If your dealership wishes to object to the Settlement or the
request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and
service awards, it may write to the Court and counsel about why
it objects. To be considered, your dealership's objection must be
filed according to the procedures set forth in the full-length
Notice and postmarked no later than February 14, 2018. The full
instructions and requirements for objecting to the Settlement may
be viewed at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

3.  Attend the Final Approval Hearing

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 28, 2018
at a time to be determined, at the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S.
Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 272, Detroit, MI
48226 to decide whether to approve the Settlement and the request
for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service
awards.  You or your own lawyer may attend and ask the Court's
permission to speak, but you don't have to participate in the
hearing in order to attend. To request to speak at the Final
Approval Hearing, you must follow the procedures set forth in the
full-length Notice no later than February 14, 2018.

This notice is a summary only. The complete terms, including the
definitions of what parties and claims are being released are set
forth in the full-length Notice, settlement agreements, and the
Court filings which may be obtained at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

For More Information, Contact the Settlement Administrator toll
free at 1-866-742-4955 or visit www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.


MONEY MUTUAL: Ct. Won't Certify Interlocutory Appeal in "Rilley"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Selling Source's
Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal in the case
captioned Scott Rilley, Michelle Kunza, Linda Gonzales and
Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative
class, Plaintiffs, v. MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, and
PartnerWeekly, LLC, Defendants, Civil No. 16-4001 (DWF/LIB) (D.
Minn.).

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and the Court denied that motion.

Plaintiffs are consumer-borrowers and have filed a purported
class action against Defendants related to the payday loans.
Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Defendants PartnerWeekly
and Selling Source and to add a claim for violating 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c) of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act. Defendants then removed the case to
federal court.

The Court concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over
Defendants based on the nationwide service of process allowed for
under the RICO Act. The Court noted that without the RICO Act,
the Court would have dismissed Selling Source, but would have
stayed the dismissal pending jurisdictional discovery. The Court
then dismissed the RICO claim for failure to state a claim.
In dismissing the claim, the Court acknowledged the incongruity
between using the RICO claim to exercise jurisdiction and then
dismissing the claim as insufficiently pleaded. Ultimately, the
Court concluded that Plaintiffs satisfied the lower standard (a
colorable claim) needed for jurisdiction. Selling Source now
moves the Court to certify for interlocutory appeal the following
question:

    Can a federal court assert personal jurisdiction over a
defendant pursuant to the RICO Act, despite simultaneously
dismissing the RICO Act claim against the defendant with
prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6)?

Certification Will Not Materially Advance the Litigation

Selling Source argues that granting interlocutory appeal will
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation
because a reversal by the Eighth Circuit would remove Selling
Source from the litigation. Selling Source, however, overstates
the effect of a successful appeal because Selling Source would
still have to go through jurisdictional discovery. Regardless,
the Court concludes that appeal will not advance the termination
of the litigation because the same claims will still proceed
against Selling Source's subsidiaries, which are represented by
the same attorneys.

The Court therefore concludes that Selling Source has failed to
show that interlocutory appeal will materially advance the
termination of the litigation. Because the Court concludes that
certifying the issue would not materially advance the litigation,
and that conclusion is dispositive, the Court declines to discuss
the other issues.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc9bfhfo from Leagle.com.

Scott Rilley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes,
Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C..

Scott Rilley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise --
josterwise@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac vice, John
G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, PC & Mark
L. Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney Law Firm, LLC.

Michelle Kunza, individually and on behalf of the putative
classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P.
C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark
L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC.

Linda Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative
classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P.
C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark
L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the putative
classes, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Berger & Montague, P.
C., pro hac vice, John G. Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC & Mark
L. Heaney, Heaney Law Firm, LLC.

MoneyMutual, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck
Loukas -- cloukas@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA,
Donald J. Putterman -- dputterman@plglawyers.com -- Putterman
Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler --
jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Michelle L.
Landry -- mlandry@plylaw.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder -- tsnyder@plylaw.com -- Putterman
Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice.

Selling Source, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck
Loukas, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J. Putterman, Putterman
Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler, Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice &Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac
vice.

PartnerWeekly, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina Rieck
Loukas, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J. Putterman, Putterman
Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Windler, Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac
vice.


MORMUGAO PORT: Vasco Residents Urged to File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Herald Goa reports that the members of Goa Against Coal (GAC)
along with those of NGO --'Our Rivers Our Rights' (OROR) on
Dec. 17 rejected the coal handling and transportation resolution
adopted by the legislators on the floor of the Goa Assembly
saying that they are not satisfied as it (resolution) only speaks
that no proposals for expansion of existing berths or new berths
will be allowed.

GAC members specifically said that they demand a full stop on
coal handling and transportation in Goa.

"The resolution does not meet our demand as we want total stop in
coal handling and transportation in Goa.  However, the Goa
Assembly resolution speaks that no proposals for expansion of
existing berths or new berths will be allowed and this does not
meet our requirements.  We are not waiting to see what happens
during the debate on river nationalisation on the floor of the
House," Cyril Fernandes, a member of Goa Against Coal (GAC) said
during a meeting of activists held in Cortalim on Dec. 17.

The meeting was held to decide on future course of action and it
was unanimously decided that GAC along with OROR volunteers will
take the message and protest to the villages across Goa.  Taluka-
wise teams were also constituted during the meeting and around 22
people have offered to become volunteers and they have been
assigned the task to give presentation in all the villages on how
the import of coal is going to cause harm to the lives of people
and how coal transportation through roads, rivers and railways
will lead to Goa's destruction.

During the meeting, the activists alleged that the Mormugao Port
Trust (MPT) has been pushing its plans in name of Sagarmala
project which is being pushed by the Shipping Ministry.

They vowed to expose as to how the state government and
especially Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar misled the people of
Goa by saying that river nationalisation was decided by the
Central government whereas in reality central government had
sought the opinion of Goa state.  However, the Goa government
failed to protect state's interest.

Activist Claude Alvares of the Goa Foundation gave detailed
opinion on legal issues and even alleged that MPT is not a recent
culprit but since 1987, MPT has been violating the laws of the
land.  He said that the Vasco residents should file a 'Class
Action' suit worth over Rs 200 crore against MPT for violating
the environmental norms and putting the lives of the citizens at
risk.

"The response from the citizens and activists for the Cortalim
meet was very good.  Representatives from all talukas were
present and everyone has committed to work further and to push
the cause and to see that coal transportation is completely
stopped in Goa and rights of rivers should be retained with
locals," Cyril Fernandes added. [GN]


NFL: 3rd Cir. Revives Super Bowl Ticket Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the Third
Circuit revived claims on Dec. 15 that Super Bowl ticket hoarding
by the NFL caused fans to pay inflated prices on the secondary
market.

Lead plaintiff Josh Finkelman has seen his class action dismissed
twice in the last four years, but the Dec. 15 decision out of
Philadelphia says Mr. Finkelman's recent changes to his
allegations of price gouging established his standing to bring
the suit.

The NFL was holding Super Bowl XLVIII at the MetLife Stadium in
East Rutherford, N.J., when the Mr. Finkelman first brought his
suit. Though the stadium has a seating capacity of 77,500, he
noted that the NFL made just 1 percent of those seats available
to the public via lottery, reserving the lion's share for
football teams, TV stations and other "league insiders.

Mr. Finkelman ultimately paid $4,000 on the secondary market for
two tickets that had a face value of $800 each.  The complaint
alleged violations of the New Jersey Ticket Law, which prohibits
withholding more than 5 percent of available seating to the
public, but Mr. Finkelman stumbled initially to show standing.

In affirming dismissal in 2016, the Third Circuit noted that Mr.
Finkelman's pleading failed to how the NFL's practice of
withholding most of the tickets affected pricing.  "We can only
speculate -- and speculation is not enough to sustain Article III
standing," the court ruled.

Mr. Finkelman tried to beef up his claims in an amended
complaint, including testimony from economist Daniel Rascher who
specializes in secondary ticket markets.  Mr. Rascher submitted
evidence that, without the NFL's withholding, more fans would
sell their tickets to other fans, and that the market is instead
dominated by brokers with inroads to league insiders who jack up
ticket prices.

A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit held oral argument on
Mr. Finkelman's second appeal in July.  On Dec.15, the court was
unanimous that Rascher's analysis regarding insider sales
establishes standing.

"Finkelman did not just allege that prices would be lower on the
secondary market were it not for the NFL's withholding," U.S.
Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the court.  "Instead,
Finkelman alleged a causal chain justifying why the NFL's
withholding set into motion a series of events that ultimately
raised prices on the secondary market."

The NFL "may be correct that Mr. Finkelman will not be able to
prove that the 2014 Superbowl [sic] secondary ticket market
worked as he claims," the 18-page opinion says.

"But Finkelman is not required to prove his economic theory in
his complaint, and at this stage in the litigation, Finkelman has
alleged sufficient factual allegations to show that [the NFL's]
withholding raised the price that he paid for the tickets on the
secondary market," Judge Fuentes added.

Mr. Finkelman's attorney, Bruce Nagel of Roseland, New Jersey,
said he was "extremely thrilled" by the reversal, which now
exposes the NFL to damage claim of more than $300 million.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement that the NFL's
ticket distribution policy complies with New Jersey's law.

The Third Circuit invited the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule on
whether the amended complaint has standing under state law.

Of the total tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl, the NFL gave 17.5
percent each to the two teams in the contest, the Denver Broncos
and Seattle Seahawks.  Remaining NFL teams were given 35 percent,
and 25 percent went to companies, broadcast networks, host
committee and other league insiders. [GN]


NFL: Professor Recommends 15% Cap on Contingency Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Harvard Law
School professor William Rubenstein has recommended a 15% cap on
contingency fees for plaintiffs lawyers representing individual
players in the $1 billion NFL concussion settlement.
Mr. Rubenstein also rejected the idea that an additional 5% to go
to the common benefit fund for class counsel, who have already
asked for $112.5 million in fees.

Why it matters: Mr. Rubenstein isn't just an expert on class
actions.  He's the author of the frequently cited 11-volume
treatise called "Newberg on Class Actions."

Back in September, Ms. Bronstad reached out to Mr. Rubenstein for
a story on how judges frequently used academic studies to decide
attorney fees, particularly in large class action settlements.
"Judges do take the role seriously," Mr. Rubenstein told
Ms. Bronstad.  "And they understand they're a bulwark against
excessive fees from the class members' money."

What the report said: Mr. Rubenstein called the 5% set-aside
"troubling in that it implies that class counsel sought to
significantly enhance their own fees without significantly
enhancing their own work, or most importantly, their clients'
recoveries."

Mass torts expert Elizabeth Burch, a professor at the University
of Georgia School of Law, agreed with that conclusion.  "There is
a disconnect between class counsel receiving all of their
attorneys' fees up front and (at least some) class members
waiting for decades for their payment.  So, not permitting the 5%
set aside on top of the $112.5 million strikes me as reasonable."
[GN]


NISSAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over CVT Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Nissan transmission (CVT) class-action lawsuit filed in Alabama
alleges cars and SUVs are equipped with continuously variable
transmissions that allegedly slip, jerk, jump, bind, lag and stop
suddenly without warning.

Plaintiff U Can Rent LLC says it purchased nine 2013 Sentras, one
2013 Nissan Juke and four 2014 Nissan Jukes.

Plaintiff Pamela Pritchett says she purchased a 2013 Nissan
Sentra that experienced the same transmission problems as U Can
Rent.  Ms. Pritchett says the problem got so bad, she couldn't
drive the car and eventually had to pay about $4,500 to replace
the CVT.

However, the plaintiff says the replacement transmission is no
better than the original CVT. Nissan allegedly refused to help
pay for the repairs and said there weren't any problems with the
transmission.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs started having CVT
problems when the vehicles had less than 20,000 miles on them,
including incidents of engines revving, shuddering and delays in
shifting. At other times, the vehicles felt like they dropped
down a gear while driving.

No amount of maintenance will help with the transmission
problems, according to the plaintiffs, and depending on Nissan's
warranties is allegedly a mistake.

The lawsuit says Nissan dealers routinely say there is nothing
wrong with the CVTs after diagnostic tests are performed.  The
plaintiffs claim dealerships often say the transmissions just
need "broken in," so no repairs to the CVT's are required.

Other Nissan CVT lawsuits claim the automaker knew about the
transmissions for years, and this lawsuit is no different.  The
plaintiffs say Nissan has known about the problems for at least
10 years and concealed that knowledge to continue marketing and
selling the vehicles.

Proof can allegedly be seen in the multiple technical service
bulletins (TSBs) Nissan sent to its dealerships about the
continuously variable transmissions.  Additionally, the automaker
issued an extended warranty program called the "CVT Customer
Satisfaction Program" in response to similar issues identified in
2007-2010 Sentras and other models.

But the plaintiffs say they were shocked when Nissan didn't
include many affected vehicles in the CVT program, including
theirs.

According to the lawsuit, Nissan should have skipped the
bulletins and customer service programs and ordered a recall, but
instead, the automaker continues to market the transmissions as
more durable than typical transmissions.

The proposed class-action lawsuit includes all consumers who own
or lease or formally owned or leased 2013 Nissan Sentras or 2013-
2014 Nissan Jukes. In addition, the lawsuit says other currently
unnamed Nissan vehicles with CVTs are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama -- U Can Rent, LLC et al., v. Nissan North
America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Heninger Garrison Davis LLC,
and the Law Offices of Troy King. [GN]


NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gift Card Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Carr, Esq. -- william.carr@dbr.com -- and John S. Yi,
Esq. -- john.yi@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, wrote that a California
state court issued a final approval of a class action settlement
on behalf of a class of California consumers in a gift card case
that serves as a reminder that California's gift card statute
mandates that cards with balances of less than $10 are redeemable
for their cash equivalents.

One of the more appealing aspects of California's gift card
statute for the plaintiffs' class action bar may be the
redemption of remaining balances on gift cards for cash. Section
1749.5(b)(2) states that "any gift certificate with a cash value
of less than ten dollars ($10) is redeemable in cash for its cash
value."  Since California's gift card statute was amended to
include this provision in 2007, plaintiffs' lawyers have filed
dozens, if not more, of lawsuits related to gift card redemptions
in California state and federal courts.  These lawsuits often
stem from compliance programs that fail to address the amendment
or employees who are unaware of the amendment and who refuse to
redeem applicable gift cards.

Factual Background
In Martinez v. Norms Restaurants, LLC, No. RIC1512432 (Cal. Sup.
Ct. Oct. 16, 2015), the plaintiff alleged that he visited a
California Norms Restaurant location and used a gift card to
purchase items at the restaurant.  With a remaining balance of
less than $10 on the gift card, the plaintiff alleged that he
"did not want any other items offered by [Norms Restaurants]," he
"wanted the cash value of the gift card," but upon requesting the
cash balance on the card, he was informed that he "could not get
the balance in cash and the balance had to remain on the card for
future use at Norms Restaurants."

Plaintiff's complaint further alleges that pre-filing
investigations were conducted to determine whether the
plaintiff's experience was an isolated incident or a pervasive
issue. Plaintiff alleged that the results of the investigation
"revealed that Norms Restaurants employees consistently refused
to honor valid requests for cash back on gift cards with a
balance of less than $10."  Against this backdrop, the plaintiff
filed a putative class action in California Superior Court
alleging violations of California's Gift Card Law, Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as a common law
claim of unjust enrichment.

Rather than engage in extensive motions practice, the parties
entered into mediation that culminated in a class-wide
settlement.  The settlement, which received final approval,
established a class consisting of:

All consumers in California who (1) possess a Norms Restaurants
gift card which has a balance of less than $10.00 that was
originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and
December 31, 2015, or (2) possessed such a gift card that was
originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and
December 31, 2015 but disposed of it upon being informed by a
Norms Restaurant employee in California that it could not be
redeemed for cash.

The Settlement
The settlement reached by the parties provides class members, who
claim to have disposed of a gift card with a balance of less than
$10 as a result of being informed by a Norms Restaurants employee
that redemption for cash was not permissible, with a $9.99 gift
card that can be used at any Norms Restaurants in California or
redeemed for cash. In addition, the settlement requires Norms
Restaurants to implement the following compliance practices:

   -- Thoroughly review its policies and practices regarding gift
card redemption and update its employee manuals to state that
"California law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for
cash, upon a customer's request, when the gift card balance falls
below $10" or similar language.

   -- Hold at least one training session for its existing guest-
facing employees in its California locations for purposes of
reviewing gift card redemption policies.

   -- Instruct new employees that California law requires that a
gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer's request,
when the gift card balance falls below $10.

   -- Post a reasonably sized notice in an employee-only area for
24 months stating the following or similar language: "California
law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a
customer's request, when the gift card balance falls below $10."

   -- Post a notice to its customers in each of its California
locations for 24 months, stating that "Norms Gift Cards with
balances of under $10 ($.01 - $9.99) will be redeemed for cash,
upon request."

   -- Publish the following or similar language for 24 months on
its "Gift Card" web page: "Norms Gift Cards with balances of
under $10 ($.01 - $9.99) will be redeemed for cash, upon
request."

Takeaways
Norms Restaurants serves as a reminder that the plaintiffs' class
action bar continues to pursue claims related to California's
gift card redemption provision in earnest, even investigating
whether businesses are complying with the provision by attempting
to redeem gift cards with balances below $10.  In addition, the
settlement terms provide businesses with compliance practices
that, if not already implemented, are worth considering in order
to prevent similar lawsuits in the future. [GN]


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAKEENA BARRETT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM,
Defendant, The Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09088 (N.D. Ill., Dec.
18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated
damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant maintained and continues to
maintain, a common policy of failing to pay Representatives for
the time they spend before the start of their scheduled shifts
performing the foregoing pre-shift activities, all of which
direct benefit Defendant and are essential to their
responsibilities as Representatives.

Specifically, Defendant prohibits its Representatives from
clocking in more than seven minutes prior to the start of their
scheduled shifts. Because it takes Representatives 8-24 minutes
to boot up their computers and start-up and log-in to various
computer programs, software programs, and applications,
Defendant's seven-minute rule compels them to perform these
activities before clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system.

Further, Representatives are not even compensated for the time
they spend after clocking in, because Defendant rounds their time
to the nearest quarter-hour interval. Representatives who clock
in at 8:53 a.m., for example, are not paid until 9:00 a.m. Thus,
the work Representatives typically perform in the seven minutes
leading up the start of their scheduled shifts, (i.e. starting up
and logging in to various computer programs, software programs,
and applications and reading work-related e-mails), is not
compensated. Defendant's policy does not qualify as a permissible
rounding under the FLSA, because Defendant's seven-minute rule
compels Representatives to clock in closer to the following
quarter-hour internal (i.e. the start of their scheduled shift
time), than to the preceding quarter-hour interval. Thus, this
arrangement does not -- average out so that the employees are
fully compensated for all the time they actually work, and
instead -- results, over a period of time, in failure to
compensate the employees properly for all the time they have
actually worked.

As a result of Defendant's unlawful common policies, the
Representatives are deprived of approximately 11 to 29 minutes
per day, including time in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, the IWPCA, and Defendant's
contractual obligation to pay Representatives for all hours
worked.

The Defendant is an integrated healthcare delivery system serving
patients throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. The Defendant
operates four Hospitals -- Evanston, Glenbrook, Highland Park and
Skokie -- as well as NorthShore Medical Group with more than 70
offices and more than 800 primary and specialty care physicians,
the Research Institute and Foundation. In total, the health
system employs more than 8,000 people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Zijian Guan, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, Michigan 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: JThompson@sommerspc.com
                  CRAsh@sommerspc.com


OKLAHOMA: Lawsuits Over Jail Overcrowding Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Ben Botkin, writing for Oklahoma Watch, reports that padlocks are
welded onto cell doors at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary for
when the electronic locks fail.

The state's three prisons for women are at 129 percent of
capacity, meaning inmates must sleep in temporary bunk beds in
day rooms.

Shelves with thousands of inmate files jam what once was a
basketball court at the Kate Barnard Correctional Center. It's
the backup for a three-decade-old software program used for
recordkeeping.

With overcrowded and deteriorating prisons and shortages of
corrections officers, Oklahoma's prison system might appear to be
primed for a federal takeover.  As if to make the point, the
state Department of Corrections in November proposed a budget
increase of $1 billion in appropriations for fiscal 2019, similar
to 2016's ask.

"We are not a listing ship," Corrections Director Joe Allbaugh
said recently, seated in his Oklahoma City office.  "We are a
sinking ship."

But after years of warnings that the federal government could
take the helm of corrections and right the ship, it has yet to
happen.

Year after year, the inmate population continues to rise,
facilities decline, the department turns to private prisons,
costs go up, and efforts to lower incarceration rates advance in
fits and starts.  Mr. Allbaugh and other leaders also warned that
a riot could erupt, evoking the notorious three-day riot in 1973
that burned much of the penitentiary in McAlester and left three
inmates dead.

There are some signs that legal action could eventually lead to
dramatic changes.  But instances of federal courts or agencies
taking control of states' entire prison systems are unusual and
scattered.

Still, across the country a number of state prisons or county
jails answer to federal overseers.  And in Oklahoma, it would be
a case of repeating history.

How the Feds Intervene

The federal government doesn't decide on its own to assume
control of a state corrections system or send in its own hand-
picked people to operate a system or prison.

Federal intervention often begins with a lawsuit filed by one or
more inmates who allege a pattern of problems or injustices in a
facility or a system.  The potential for impact widens if the
lawsuit is granted class-action status by a U.S. District Court
judge, meaning the alleged harm to a handful of inmates is
considered representative of a larger inmate population.

The lawsuit may result in a consent decree, with the state
agreeing to cede authority over all or part of its prisons and
submit to oversight and supervision by the U.S. Justice
Department or a judge.

The Justice Department also has the authority to investigate
jails and prisons and file lawsuits on its own, or join existing
lawsuits, in order to force changes.  Corrections agencies
sometimes reach agreements with the Justice Department on
improving conditions without a drawn-out lawsuit.

A number of prison or jail systems have faced federal action:

   -- Alabama's corrections system entered into a consent decree
in 2015 to improve conditions for inmates at a women's prison.

   -- In 2009, Oklahoma County entered into an agreement with the
feds to improve its jail in areas such as mental health services
and housing.

   -- The Justice Department in 2015 reached a schedule with the
Territory of Guam for implementing prison reforms. That came
after decades of working under a 1991 settlement agreement.

   -- Ohio entered into a consent decree in 2008 to reform
conditions at juvenile facilities that included unlawful
seclusion of offenders with mental health needs. The agreement
ended in 2015 after a monitoring team reported to the court on
improvements.

In Oklahoma, the question is whether life and treatment of
inmates in prisons have reached a point where constitutional
rights are being violated, which could lead to federal oversight.
President Donald Trump's administration, however, might be less
inclined than former President Barack Obama's administration to
intervene.

Mr. Allbaugh says that absent any changes in the agency's overall
direction, the state could find itself under a federal consent
decree.

"That is where the Justice Department comes in and tells you how
you're going to run your prison system, and it's very costly," he
said.

Lawsuits Simmer

It's common for inmates to sue corrections departments in state
or federal court, representing themselves or relying on an
attorney.

Recently, a federal appeals court revived inmate Joseph Womble's
lawsuit against the Corrections Department alleging that
conditions in the state's prisons violated his constitutional
rights.  He said temperatures in his cell at the Mack Alford
Correctional Center in Stringtown climbed above 90 degrees for
half of June 2016 and he became dehydrated.

Another lawsuit brought in August by inmates and an advocacy
group allege that state officials and private-prison companies
are perpetuating high rates of incarceration through the state's
guarantee that it will keep private prisons at least 98 percent
full.  The inmates have asked the Justice Department to
intervene.

One inmate, Stephen Craig Burnett, has sued the Corrections
Department several times, most recently in 2014 when he was in
the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena.  Serving a life
sentence for murdering his wife, Burnett alleges that prisons are
overcrowded and understaffed and pose a danger to inmates and
officers.  The case was dismissed but remains on appeal.

Asked about its efforts in corrections, American Civil Liberties
Union of Oklahoma said it is considering filing a lawsuit related
to prisons as early as next spring, although nothing is firm.
Brady Henderson, legal director, said the lawsuit potentially
could focus on medical care for inmates and physical conditions
on death row at the penitentiary.

Mr. Henderson noted there are different approaches, such as
filing several smaller, narrowly framed lawsuits or pursuing a
larger case that covers the entire system.

"I think the question is, at some point are we going to get to
the big, kitchen sink case?" he said, adding winning that case
would require showing systemic problems.

Typically, corrections officials, county sheriffs and others
involved with jails and prisons fear loss of control and
ballooning costs for improvements once the federal courts step
in.

Historic Case

Tulsa attorney Louis Bullock spent much of his career on a
landmark Oklahoma case, Battle v. Anderson, involving federal
intervention in the state's prisons.  Mr. Bullock became the lead
counsel for plaintiffs in 1976, working on the case until 2000.

The Battle case started with about six inmates in the
penitentiary and centered on medical care, due process and use of
force in 1972 and before.  In 1977, when lawyers had a better
understanding of the evidence, the case had grown to include
confinement conditions and overcrowding, Mr. Bullock said.  The
litigation also expanded to cover all the state's prisons and
inmates.

The lawsuit was filed one year before the 1973 riot, which put
the system under further scrutiny.

Even so, the "minimally adequate system" that resulted from the
lawsuit was "unfortunately a high-water mark" for Oklahoma before
conditions worsened, Mr. Bullock said.

Mr. Bullock said there is "little question" that the state is
following a path that will lead to a lawsuit and federal
oversight of the prison system.

"They do not have the capacity to hold the number of people
they're locking up," he said, adding, "Even from my distance, I
can see the deterioration that is taking place, and they have a
very real risk that the federal courts will have to take over the
prison system again."

Mr. Bullock added that money won't fix everything -- changes to
the criminal justice system also are needed.  He's concerned that
the Corrections Department is seeking money to build new prisons
rather than focusing on reducing incarceration.

"The one lesson that Oklahoma should know by now is that they
have never been successful -- in fact, no one's ever been
successful -- in building out of this crisis," Mr. Bullock said.
He invoked a line from the movie "Field of Dreams": "Prisons are
like the proverbial ballfields in Iowa.  If you build it, they
will come."

As to whether federal oversight will happen, corrections director
Mr. Allbaugh said, "We'll see.  I hate the thought of that
because I believe the Department of Corrections is one of the
major core functions of government. . .  There's always going to
be bad people."

But "if the state doesn't demonstrate that they can handle their
prison population in a safe and humane way, what are inmates
supposed to do? They're going to sue." [GN]


OSI SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI Systems") (NASDAQ:OSIS)
between August 21, 2013 and December 6, 2017.  You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  To get more information go to:

     http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/osi-systems

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972.  There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) OSI Systems acquired the Albania
concession through bribery or other illicit means; (2) OSI
Systems transferred 49% of its project company associated with
the Albania concession, S2 Albania SHPK, an entity allegedly
worth millions, for consideration of less than $5.00; (3) OSI
Systems engaged in other illegal acts, including improper sales
and cash payments to government officials; (4) these practices
caused OSI Systems to be vulnerable to potential civil and
criminal liability; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about OSI Systems' business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you suffered a loss in OSI Systems you have until February 5,
2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]


PANDORA ECOMM: Lopez Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR LOPEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. PANDORA ECOMM, LLC AND PANDORA
JEWELRY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10142 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 28, 2017), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Because Defendant's website, WWW.PANDORA.NET, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770 3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867 2639
          E-mail: Brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


PATRIZIA LUCA INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrizia Luca, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Patrizia Luca, Inc., Defendant, Case No1: 1:18-cv-
00027 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018).

Patrizia Luca, Inc. (trade name Fashion Concepts) is in the
Women's and Children's Clothing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Sues over Captive Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
PBMS, INC., a California Corporation, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATRIOT NATIONAL,
INC., a Florida Corporation; CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California Corporation; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
a New York Corporation; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation; SPECIALITY UNDERWRITERS
ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TOWER GROUP, INC., a
Florida Corporation; CASTLEPOINT FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Florida Corporation; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Massachusetts Corporation; MASSACHUSETTS HOMELAND INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation; YORK INSURANCE COMPANY OF
MAINE, a Maine Corporation; TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
a New York Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. BC688370
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks redress against
Defendants for their reckless, fraudulent, and negligent actions
in concealing true nature of the captive insurance policies sold
to the employers, including Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants utilized insurance
broker(s) to market and underwrite captive policies to potential
employers, including Plaintiffs, throughout the United States.
The use of the captive insurance policies was used by Defendants
to undercut the traditional worker's compensation policies as a
competitive advantage.

The Defendants operated, administrated and/or otherwise executed
captive insurance policies to the financial detriment of the
aforementioned employers, including Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
          Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
          Daniel C. Ghyczy, Esq.
          GIRARDI | KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554


PG&E CORPORATION: Faces GER Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PG&E Corporation.
The case is captioned as GER Hospitality, LLC, for itself and obo
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Civil Defendants, Case
No. SCV-261723 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017).

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is an investor-owned
electric utility with publicly traded stock that is headquartered
in the Pacific Gas & Electric Building in San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery St Fl 17
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1250
          Telephone: (415) 788 7210
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0706
          E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com

               - and -

          Shapiro Tad, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, GALVIN, SHAPIRO & MORAN
          640 3rd St.
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 544 5858


PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Koon" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as BROWN KOON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-13577-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., Dec. 23,
2017). The case is assigned to the hon. Judge Joseph H.
Rodriguez.

Pinnacle purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and
international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including
banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Gilliam" Suit in S.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, L.L.C. The case is styled as Dominique Gilliam,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00053 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018).

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

The Plantiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C.
   285 Passaic Street, Suite 7
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


PRO CUSTOM: "Sedhom" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stephanie Sedhom, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pro Custom Solar LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 716341/2017, was
removed from the New York State Supreme Court County of Queens,
to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-07559 to the proceeding.[BN]

Pro Custom, doing business as Momentum Solar, installs
residential and commercial solar power systems. The company
provides installation, maintenance, customized system design,
roofing, and complimentary tree removal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul Karim 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Marotte, Esq.
          SCHENCK PRICE SMITH & KING LLP
          220 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 539 1000
          Facsimile: (973) 540 7300
          E-mail: mjm@spsk.com


QUDIAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Dec. 18
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Qudian Inc. ("Qudian") (NYSE:QD) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's
October 18, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO").  This action
was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned
Foat v. Qudian Inc., et al, No. 17-cv-09875.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from December 12, 2017.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of
this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/qudian/. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain
an absent class member.

The complaint charges Qudian, certain of its officers and/or
directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Qudian is a financial lending company
focused on providing small cash credit products to underserved
borrowers, such as those with less credit history, lower monthly
incomes or limited access to traditional financial institutions.

On September 18, 2017, the Company filed with the SEC a
registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after
several amendments, was declared effective on October 17, 2017
(the "Registration Statement").  The Registration Statement was
used to sell to the investing public approximately 37.5 million
Qudian ADSs, representing 37.5 million Qudian Class A ordinary
shares, at $24 per share.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement contained inaccurate statements of
material fact because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that the Company was engaged in improper lending and collection
practices; that the Company had various undisclosed risks in its
loan portfolio; that because of the Company's improper lending,
underwriting and collection practices it was subject to a
heightened risk of adverse actions by Chinese regulators and its
most important strategic partner, Ant Financial; and that the
Company had failed to implement necessary safeguards to protect
customer data.

On December 12, 2017, Qudian ADSs closed at $13.19 per ADS, a 45%
decline from the price at which Qudian ADSs had been sold to the
investing public less than two months earlier in the IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Qudian ADSs in or traceable to the Company's October 18, 2017 IPO
(the "Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class
actions including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. [GN]


R.C. TWAY: Fisher Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOTT FISHER, JR., individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees and former employees, the Plaintiff,
v. R.C. TWAY COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a KENTUCKY TRAILER, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-09256 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Kentucky Trailer has willfully violated the FLSA and IMWL by
intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff Fisher and
all other employees similarly situated, compensation due them
under the FLSA, IMWL, and their implementing regulations, the
lawsuit claims.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Kentucky Trailer as a non-exempt employee at one of Kentucky
Trailer's Illinois facilities, whose primary job duty was working
as a service technician on Defendant's trailers. Fisher was
scheduled to work 40 hours per week by his employer, Kentucky
Trailer. Kentucky Trailer did not pay Fisher one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, as required under the FLSA and IMWL.

The Plaintiff and the putative classes are and were compensated
on an hourly basis. Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and the
putative classes performed work that required payment of wages
and overtime compensation. Defendant has operated under a scheme
to deprive these employees of the requisite compensation by
failing to properly compensate Fisher and the putative classes
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given work week at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Geiger, Esq.
          Ronald C. Dahms, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. GEIGER
          540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020
          Northfield, IL 60093
          Telephone: (312) 609 0060


RMH FRANCHISE: Amended "Ivery" Unpaid OT Suit Partially Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAMORA IVERY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RMH FRANCHISE CORP., RMH
ILLINOIS, LLC, and RMH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 17 C 1619 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, and
granted in part and denied in part Ivery's motion for conditional
certification.

The Defendants operate an Applebee's franchise with over 175
restaurants throughout the United States.  Ivery worked as an
assistant manager ("AMs") at an Applebee's location in Chicago,
Illinois between early 2013 and June 2014.  According to the
amended complaint, Ivery was employed by "RMH" -- which the
complaint defines as all three Defendants -- during that period.
She worked an average of 50 to 60 hours per week as an AM.
However, the Defendants did not pay her overtime for any time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, even though she frequently
performed the functions of an hourly employee.

Ivery asserts several related causes of action.  She claims that
the Defendants' policy of classifying AMs as exempt from overtime
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA").  She seeks to certify a collective
action under the FLSA and a class action under both the IMWL and
IWPCA to recover unpaid overtimes wages.

The initial complaint was filed on March 1, 2017.  On May 5,
2017, Ivery filed a notice of consent to be party in a FLSA
collective action.  Ten days later, she moved for conditional
certification and for authorization to issue notice to
prospective opt-in members.

Ivery's proposed collective includes anyone who has been employed
as an AM, including a Front of House Manager or Kitchen Manager,
at an Applebee's restaurant operated by RMH between March 1, 2014
and the present. While her motion for certification was pending,
Ivery filed, with the approval of the Court, an amended complaint
on July 6, 2017.

Two weeks later, the Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss
her amended complaint.  They argue that Ivery does not properly
allege that RMH Franchise was her employer and thus is not a
proper Defendant, and that Ivery fails to plead a necessary
element of one her Illinois wage claims.

Judge Tharp finds that the amended complaint does not plausibly
establish an employment relationship with RMH Franchise.  He will
therefore grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss RMH Franchise
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The dismissal, however,
is without prejudice.  Ivery is afforded another opportunity to
amend her pleading to address the deficiencies outlined in the
Opinion.  Moreover, this dismissal has no effect on the scope of
notice to the potential members of the collective because even if
RMH Franchise is not a Defendant, its employees may nevertheless
assert an unpaid overtime claim by virtue of RMH Holdings'
potential status as a joint employer of its subsidiaries' AMs.

Although the amended complaint does in fact allege an IWPCA
claim, Ivery now appears to abandon that claim.  As a result, the
Judge will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss Ivery's IWPCA
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss the claim with
prejudice.

With respect to the Plaintiff's conditional certification motion,
Judge Tharp holds that although the Defendants offer to toll the
statute of limitations during pre-certification discovery and
raise concerns about the cost of collective litigation, those
issues are not reason enough in the case to delay notice in the
case, particularly when amendments and motion practice have
already delayed the issuance of notice somewhat.  Thus, he finds
that Ivery has made the modest factual showing necessary to
conditionally certify a collective.

Given its status as a holding company, it does seem unlikely that
RMH Holdings was the primary employer for any restaurant level
employees, let alone AMs.  Nonetheless, as a potential joint
employer with RMH Franchise and RMH Illinois, the Judge notes
that it must be considered an employer of both of those entities'
AMs at this stage.  Therefore, he is satisfied that there is a
sufficient basis to conditionally certify as a collective all AMs
who worked at an Applebee's restaurant operated by RMH Holdings,
or its subsidiaries RMH Illinois and RMH Franchise, between March
1, 2014 and the present.

Finally, Judge Tharp directed Ivery to remove the case caption
from the notice and replace it with her attorneys' letterhead.
However, Ivery may still include the case number and the title in
her notice.  He holds that Defendants RMH Holdings and RMH
Illinois must produce all of the information, except for the
social security numbers, for AMs who have worked for either of
those Defendants or for RMH Franchise.  He also sees no issue
with Ivery's request to issue a reminder mailing and email to all
potential collective members half-way through the notice period.
Ivery must ensure, though, her reminder notice does not include a
case caption.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Tharp granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  RMH Franchise is dismissed without prejudice,
while Ivery's IWPCA claim is dismissed with prejudice.  Ivery has
until Jan. 8, 2018 to file an amended complaint that addresses
the deficiencies outlined in the Opinion regarding RMH Franchise.

Moreover, the Judge granted in part and denied in part Ivery's
motion for conditional certification.  He conditionally certified
a collective of AMs who worked at Applebee's restaurants operated
by RMH Holdings, or its subsidiaries RMH Illinois and RMH
Franchise, between March 1, 2014 and the present.  He also
approved Ivery's proposed notice and reminder with the
modifications set forth.  Finally, the Judge ordered that RMH
Holdings and RMH Illinois produce to Ivery, in digital form, the
employee contact information outlined, excluding social security
numbers, no later than Dec. 22, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/7dBWPa from Leagle.com.

Chamora Ivery, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz --
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Chamora Ivery, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Lardo Stewart --
mstewart@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, Alan L.
Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A.,
Cristina Schrum-Herrera -- Cschrumherrera@outtengolden.com --
Outten & Golden LLP, Paul William Mollica --
pwmollica@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, Relic Sun --
rsun@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell
Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP.

Noah Siebenaller, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Alan L. Quiles, Shavitz Law Group, P.A.,
Melissa Lardo Stewart, Outten and Golden LLP, Paul William
Mollica, Outten & Golden & Justin Mitchell Swartz, Outten &
Golden LLP.

RMH Franchise Corp., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L.
Schilling -- jschilling@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Angelo Spinola -- aspinola@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC &
Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

RMH Illinois, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L.
Schilling, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola, Littler
Mendelson, PC & Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
L. Schilling, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola, Littler
Mendelson, PC & Oyindamola Hanna Badmus, Littler Mendelson, P.C..


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Fund Alleges Waste of Corporate Assets
--------------------------------------------------------
The complaint, CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and
Derivatively on Behalf of ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS,
INC., the Plaintiff, v. CURTIS W. STOELTING, JUDITH A. VIJUMS,
SCOTT D. RUED, MARK A. DiBLASI, JAMES D. STALEY, CHRISTOPHER L.
DOERR, JOHN G. KENNEDY, III, BRIAN C. MURRAY, WILLIAM S. URKIEL,
MICHAEL P. WARD, IVOR J. EVANS, CHAD M. UTRUP, SCOTT L. DOBAK,
RALPH W. KITTLE, III, PETER R. ARMBRUSTER and BRIAN J. VAN
HELDEN, the Defendants, and ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01788 (E.D. Wisc., Dec. 22, 2017), contends that Defendants'
misfeasance has severely damaged this once-valuable franchise and
has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to
Roadrunner's reputation, goodwill, and standing in the business
community.  Worse yet, Defendants' actions have caused the
Company to face complex and expensive-to-defend securities class
action and exposed it to millions more in potential liability for
violations of state and federal law.

HCI Equity Partners (HCI) provides oversight of Roadrunner's
various acquisition and the corresponding debt financing for
those acquisition in exchange for fees and other remuneration. In
total, Roadrunner has paid HCI over $3.5 million in advisory fees
and remuneration from 2010 to 2015. Notably, HCI is private
equity firm that has owned an interest in Roadrunner since the
Company's formation. And as of March 1, 2016, HCI and its
affiliates held approximately 25% of Roadrunner's outstanding
common stock.

Roadrunner's growth by acquisition strategy required the Company
to purchase several companies between 2013 and 2016. However, the
Company had to greatly increase its debt load and reduce cash
flows to consummate these acquisitions. Ultimately, Roadrunner's
revenues increases from $632 million in 2010 to almost $2 billion
by 2015. But the foundation for this success was soon exposed as
a hoax.

Roadrunner provides logistics services designed to get its
customer's products to market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Wagner, Esq.
          KERKAMN WAGBER & DUNN
          839 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 400A
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 277 8200

               - and -

          Travis E. Downs, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWNS III
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101 8498
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Felipe J. Arroyo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991


RUBY TUESDAY: Executives Balk at Shareholders' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gaines, writing for Knox News, reports that Ruby Tuesday
executives fired back on Dec. 18 against lawsuits alleging they
didn't get the best price for the company -- not with a court
filing, but in a news release criticizing one alternative offer.

The Maryville-based restaurant chain announced plans in mid-
October to sell out to NRD Capital, an Atlanta private equity
firm. But, in November, at least eight shareholders filed class
action suits to stop the sale, arguing the company failed to
pursue better offers from other buyers.

On Dec. 18, Ruby Tuesday announced it had received Dec. 12
another "highly-conditional and not fully-financed proposal" from
one of those putative buyers: the Boaz Group LLC, headed by La-
Van Hawkins.

NRD offered to buy all Ruby Tuesday common stock for $2.40 per
share in cash, 21 percent above Ruby Tuesday's closing share
price on Oct. 13. The $335 million deal included assumption of
Ruby Tuesday's debt, making it worth $146.3 million to
shareholders.

Boaz offered $2.88 per share, the same it offered several months
ago, according to the SEC filings and lawsuits in which Boaz is
identified as "Bidder 11."  That would increase the sale's value
-- and thus shareholder's profits -- by $40 million, according to
a suit filed by Jonathan Raul on Nov. 13.

But in its latest announcement, Ruby Tuesday's board says Boaz
"repeatedly disappointed by submitting proposals that in each
case lacked a credible financing plan" over the past nine months.

"During the process, Boaz submitted six highly-conditional
acquisition proposals, none of which contained committed
financing despite repeated requests that Boaz needed to provide a
fully-financed proposal in order for the proposal to be
actionable and repeated assurances from Boaz that financing
commitments were forthcoming," the news release says.

That's still the case with the latest offer, so Ruby Tuesday's
board rejected it as well.

"The Board of Directors of Ruby Tuesday continues to unanimously
recommend that Ruby Tuesday stockholders vote 'FOR' the proposal
to approve and adopt the merger agreement with affiliates of NRD
Capital," the announcement says.

The deal was expected to close Dec. 21, according to the news
release.

The lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee allege the sale violates the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  A central issue is the proxy statement
Ruby Tuesday issued to its shareholders, which is -- in the words
of the earliest suit, filed Nov. 8 by Marcell Maseman --
"materially incomplete and misleading."

Six of the suits name as defendants Ruby Tuesday, its president
and CEO James Hyatt II, non-executive chairman Stephen Sadove,
and the company's other six directors.  Two more suits add NRD to
that list.

The plaintiffs allege several other buyers, including Boaz, were
still interested -- and several offered more than NRD, but Ruby
Tuesday failed to pursue them.

Plaintiffs seek to stop the deal at least until shareholders get
all relevant information; alternatively, they seek compensation
for damages resulting from the rule violations.

The restaurant chain announced in August its revenue declined
nearly 13 percent during the previous fiscal year.  That included
the effects of closing 103 restaurants.  In March, the company
agreed to consider sale or merger.

As of Sept. 5 there were 599 Ruby Tuesdays: 541 company-owned and
58 franchises. Locally, the chain has two restaurants in Alcoa,
and one each in Athens, Harriman, Jefferson City, Knoxville,
Lenoir City, Morristown, Newport, Powell and Sevierville. [GN]


SAMUEL I WHITE: Court Dismisses with Prejudice "Davis" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONNIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-18 (E.D. Va.), Magistrate Judge
Lawrence R. Leonard of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, granted the
Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The matter concerns real property formerly owned by the
Plaintiff, located at 5614 Fairfield Lane, in Hayes, Gloucester
County, Virginia.  On Nov. 25, 1998, the Plaintiff as honorably
discharged from the United States Army.  His military service
allowed him to obtain refinancing for his residential mortgage on
the Property through the Veterans Administration.  As a result of
this refinancing, he executed a Promissory Note in favor of Bank
of America (the original creditor), on Dec. 10, 2012 in the
amount of $244,105.  The same day, he executed an accompanying
Deed of Trust, which identified Bank of America as the Lender and
the Defendant as the Trustee.

The Plaintiff concedes that he defaulted on the loan in October
2013, when he failed to make payments as they came due on Oct. 1,
2013 and Nov. 1, 2013.  He made no further payments after his
September 2013 payment.  He was advised of the default status by
letter dated Nov. 15, 2013, wherein Bank of America advised him
that if he failed to cure the default amount (plus additional
regular monthly payment(s) and late fees) by Dec. 25, 2013, then
Bank of America would accelerate the loan payments, causing the
full amount to become due and payable in full.  By letter dated
Dec. 12, 2013, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC notified the Plaintiff
that effective Dec. 3, 2013, servicing of his mortgage loan
transferred from Bank of America to PennyMac.

On April 21, 2014, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff,
wherein the Defendant asserted that it had been instructed to
initiate foreclosure of the mortgage securing the Property.  Its
letter further stated that as of April 11, 2014 the amount of the
debt is $248,133.45 and that the creditor to whom the debt is
owed is PennyMac.  The letter is the complained of correspondence
upon which the Plaintiff's suit arises.  Non-judicial foreclosure
of the property was effectuated in the Circuit Court for
Gloucester County, Virginia on Aug. 25, 2014.

On Aug. 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, filed
suit against PennyMac in the Atlanta Division of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Georgia in Case No. 1:14-cv-
02679-CAP.  Therein, the Plaintiff asserted a personal suit and a
class action suit against PennyMac for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA").  Eventually, the
Georgia Action was dismissed on Feb. 27, 2015 pursuant to a Joint
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice wherein the Plaintiff
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims that
were made or that could have been made by both the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of the putative class members.  The
parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in connection with
the stipulated dismissal

On April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
on May 12, 2015.  In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on June 5, 2015.

The Amended Complaint consists of two counts.  Count I alleges
that the Defendant committed various violations of the FDCPA
against the Plaintiff individually, by sending him a written
communication which misstated the amount of a debt owed,
misidentified the creditor, and impermissibly threatened to
initiate non-judicial foreclosure when no such right to
possession existed; by actually foreclosing on the Property; and
by recording a "void foreclosure deed" on the Property.  Count II
alleges what the Plaintiff describes as "Class Allegations"
asserted on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
to him pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section  1692k(a)(2)(B) for alleged
violations of FDCPA by sending communications that misstated the
amount of debt owed and misidentified the creditor.

The Defendant filed a Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim or to Strike First Amended Complaint on June 18,
2015.  Ultimately, the Maryland Action was disposed of by the
Hon. Richard D. Bennett's March 24, 2016 Memorandum Order and
Opinion.

On March 24, 2016, the case was officially transferred to the
Newport News division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, pursuant to Judge Bennett's Memorandum
Order and Opinion.  The parties consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
Therein, it renewed and incorporated the arguments made in its
previously filed Motion to Dismiss and contends that the
Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), or alternatively, as a
matter of law pursuant to Rule 56.

In support of this argument, the Defendant contends that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law for several reasons,
including: the absence of a justiciable case or controversy; the
bar imposed by collateral estoppel and issue preclusion; and the
Plaintiff's failure to establish a claim under the FCDPA.
Additionally, it argues that Count IPs request for class action
and class certification status is without basis and unwarranted.

Magistrate Judge Leonard finds that the Plaintiff's allegations
of violations of FDCPA on the basis that the Defendant
misidentified the loan creditor in its April 21, 2014 Letter do
not survive the deferential Motion to Dismiss standard.  Based on
his review of the Record and other permissible sources of
information, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
claimed violations of FDCPA regarding the identification of the
creditor are only plausible if the Plaintiff can establish that
between Dec. 12, 2013 and May 29, 2014, a different entity
besides PennyMac Loan Services became the creditor and holder of
the Promissory Note.  As detailed, the Magistrate Judge finds
this to be implausible and requires the assumption of unwarranted
inferences in the Plaintiff's favor.  Thus, the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Count I will be granted with prejudice as to
these specific grounds.

In addition, Magistrate Judge Leonard finds that even if the
Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a cause of action, dismissal of
his purported Class Action claims in Count II is required due to
his total failure to properly assert a class action, both
procedurally and substantively.  Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge will grant with prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
as to Count II.

For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge holds concludes that
the Complaint is insufficient to survive a Motion to Dismiss.  To
the extent that the Plaintiff's allegations move beyond
unsupported legal conclusions, the alleged facts do not support
his claimed FDCPA violations.  Accordingly, he granted the
Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and the Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.  Further, the Magistrate Judge
dismissed as moot the Defendant's outstanding Motion to Compel
Discovery.  He directed the Clerk to forward a copy of the Order
to all counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1DLoEs from Leagle.com.

Ronnie Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Barkai Pershing.

Ronnie Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller, III, Miller
Legal P. C., pro hac vice.

Samuel I White, P.C., Defendant, represented by Lisa Hudson Kim,
Samuel I White PC.


SEPHORA USA: Court Conditionally Certifies "Hernandez" FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LACEY HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05392-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for FLSA certification and denied their request for equitable
tolling.

Hernandez and Morales are California residents and former Sephora
employees.  They bring a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim
against Sephora, asserting that Sephora required employees to
spend significant time applying required levels of makeup during
off hours and on breaks. Given this "off the clock" work, they
contend that their total hours worked, and therefore their total
overtime compensation, was not properly calculated and paid.
Their FLSA claim is based on alleged company-wide Sephora
policies, and they seek to represent a nationwide collective
class.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action and a FLSA
collective action on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated non-exempt employees and former employees of Sephora on
Sept. 20, 2016, alleging nine causes of action.  They stipulated
to dismiss their state-counterclaims on Feb. 2, 2017.  Sephora
subsequently moved to stay the action, which Judge Orrick denied
on March 13, 2017, declining the application of the Colorado
River abstention doctrine.

The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of their
collective action under Section 216(b) of FLSA.  Sephora opposes
the motion for conditional certification, asserting that (i) the
Plaintiffs do not present allegations or competent evidence that
demonstrates that Sephora's guidelines are illegal or give rise
to overtime liability under FLSA; and (ii) the Plaintiffs fail to
show that they are "similarly situated" to the more than 5000
Cast Members across more than 350 stores nationwide from the
beginning of the putative class period through the present.

Judge Orrick finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged common policy
or plan.  In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Sephora
required them to perform compensable work "off the clock" by
mandating that they spend significant time applying required
makeup during off hours and on breaks.  To support these
allegations, they provide declarations from former employees that
describe how the makeup requirements were implemented at Sephora.
The Judge finds this sufficient as an allegation of a common
policy or plan.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs are similarly situated.
He says that given the low bar at this stage, the declarations
filed by both Sephora and the Plaintiffs suggest that, though the
explicit guidelines changed, there is still sufficient evidence
to indicate that the makeup requirement remained.  And the new
guidelines clearly state that makeup must be applied "off the
clock."  This allows conditional collective certification.

With respect to the scope of the conditional certification, Judge
Orrick concludes that the sex limitation is valid but the time
period limitation is not.  The Plaintiffs correctly point out
that Sephora's records may show that class members may have
worked less than 40 hours per week, but actually may have worked
more than 40 hours if the time applying makeup is counted and
their legal claims prevail.  But merely describing the class as
females who worked on an hourly basis would not sufficiently
limit the class.  As to the location limitation that Sephora
suggests, there is no requirement that a plaintiff provide
evidence of similarly situated employees at every location in the
proposed class.

Finally, the Judge finds that Sephora's motion to stay does not
warrant tolling.  The motion was filed promptly, had a good faith
basis, and was decided prior to the noticed hearing date.  It is
not a reason to toll.  The Plaintiffs also ask that the Judge
tolls the time between the hearing on the motion for conditional
certification and the end of the opt-in period, noting that
courts have frequently tolled the time during which they have a
motion for conditional certification under consideration.  Given
that he has ruled on the motion promptly after the hearing date,
the Judge concludes, tolling is not necessary.  Accordingly, he
denied the Plaintiffs' request to toll the statute of
limitations.

Judge Orrick directed the parties to meet and confer concerning
the form of and timing for the opt-in notice and attempt to agree
on those matters within 14 days of the date of the Order.  If the
parties cannot agree, they will submit their proposals to me
within 14 days of the date of the Order, and he will determine
the matters promptly.

For these foregoing, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional collective action certification for females employed
by Sephora as "Cashiers," "Cash Wrap Coordinators," "Personal
Beauty Advisors," and/or "Product Consultants," who worked 40 or
more hours, including any time spent applying makeup "off the
clock," in a given week, from June 20, 2014 to present.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bzupdW from Leagle.com.

Lacey Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason -
- david@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason and Archbold.

Lacey Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by John Matthew Norton,
Matthew Norton & Associates & Matthew Frederick Archbold --
matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com -- Deason and Archbold.

Brenda Morales, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason,
Deason and Archbold & Matthew Frederick Archbold, Deason and
Archbold.

Sephora USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Andrew Ralston Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexandra Elena Heifetz --
aheifetz@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP &
Alexandra H. Stathopoulos -- astathopoulos@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP.


SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZHANG BAO ZHOU, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHANGHAI CUISINE 33, INC., SAMMY
KWOK and RAYMOND YIP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07367-AMD-
RML (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017), alleges that, while working for
Defendants, Plaintiff did not receive spread of hours
compensation of one additional hour at the regular rate of pay,
for all days in which Plaintiff worked in excess of 10 hours in
any day. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a meal break or
any other break during the work day. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff a set wage regardless the hours that he worked.

Shanghai Cuisine 33, Inc. is an enterprise and employer that has
owned, operated and controlled the restaurant located at 57-33
Main Street, Flushing, New York. The business is owned, operated
and controlled by individual Defendants Sammy Kwok and Raymond
Yip.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo R. Morel, Esq.
          39-15 Main Street - Suite 318
          Flushing, New York 11354
          Telephone: (454) 362 8960
          E-mail: Esquire1998@gmail.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, on Dec. 18 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Signet
Jewelers Limited ("Signet" or the "Company") (NYSE: SIG) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Signet shares between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/sig

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 21, 2017, during Signet's Q3 2017 conference call,
CEO Virginia Drosos revealed that Signet "faced headwinds" from
"disruptions in our systems and processes during our credit
outsourcing transition" which "impacted our comp sales by sixty
basis points."  The CEO continued to explain that the disruptions
were caused by the conversion of IT systems and the magnitude of
in-store process changes related to the new program.  Following
this news, Signet stock dropped $23.05, or 30%, to close at
$52.79 per share on November 21, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/sigor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in Signet you can request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Confirms IMF Bentham Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Tom Richardson, writing for Fool.com, reports that Sirtex Medical
Limited acknowledged that legal proceedings against it had been
filed in the Federal court by lawyers Maurice Blackburn.

The claim for breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations
is being funded by litigation funders IMF Bentham Ltd (ASX: IMF)
who will meet the legal fees of Maurice Blackburn and wear the
risk that the claim is unsuccessful.

IMF Bentham claims that it has a 91% success rate in claims
funded to June 30, 2017, with 147 out of 162 cases completed won.

Those kind of statistics are no surprise as the law is designed
to provide certainty and even semi-competent lawyers should be
able to assess the outcomes of potential claims based on facts
and precedent with a high degree of certainty.

For example if IMF's claim is rejected by a judge it faces a
substantial cost hit, credibility gap, and red faces all round as
it would suggest a failure in their professional interpretation
of the law.

When talking of credibility it's notable that Sirtex Medical's
current board and management is reporting that it will
"vigorously defend the new action" -- despite having sacked its
old CEO after an internal investigation (by independent legal
experts) into his conduct and share trading at the end of 2016.

If IMF's claim is successful the compensation will be calculated
after the court (or legal teams) agree what the share price would
have been trading at but for the breaches of the company's
continuous disclosure obligations over the period in a question.

In other words it's alleged that if the company and sacked CEO
had kept the market properly updated as to its sales trajectory
the share price would likely have been substantially lower and
the difference between the actual traded price and the
theoretical price will be used to calculate potential
compensation quantum to claimants.

The total compensation potentially due is hard to estimate as it
would depend, inter alia, on the number of claimants, which could
be a big variable.

Outlook

Any final bill is unlikely to prove a massive hit to Sirtex given
its strong balance sheet and its main challenges remain
flattening dose sales growth and rising competition. [GN]


SONIC CORP: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that Iconic American
drive-in restaurant chain Sonic was hit with a class action in
Illinois federal court on Dec. 15, alleging the restaurant did
not safeguard its customer credit card data, and as a result the
data is being sold on the black market.

Chicago resident Clara Hughes-Hillman alleged Sonic Corp. should
have known to bolster protections on consumer data, especially
after the well-publicized data breaches at other large chain
restaurants and companies.

The case is Hughes-Hillman v. SONIC CORPORATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-09062 (N.D. Ill.).   The case was filed December 17,
2017. [GN]


SRA MANAGEMENT: Jan. 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bivona, et al., Case No.
3:16-CV-1386-EMC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR INVESTORS AND CREDITORS TO FILE
PROOFS OF CLAIM IN THE SRA FUNDS RECEIVERSHIP ACTION

To: All persons who are currently invested in one or more of the
following investment funds (collectively, the "Receivership
Funds"): 1) SRA I LLC; 2) SRA II LLC; 3) SRA III LLC; 4) NYPA
Fund I LLC; 5) NYPA Fund II LLC; 6) Felix Multi-Opportunity Fund
I LLC; and 7) Felix Multi-Opportunity Fund II LLC.

To: All persons who are creditors of one or more of the following
entities (collectively, the "Receivership Entities"): 1) SRA
Management Associates, LLC; 2) FMOF Management Associates, LLC;
3) NYPA Management Associates, LLC; 4) Clear Sailing Group IV,
LLC; 5) Clear Sailing Group V, LLC; and 6) One or more of the
Receivership Funds.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California has set a deadline for
all persons who are investors in one or more of the Receivership
Funds or creditors or one or more of the Receivership Entities to
file proofs of claim in the SEC v. Bivona receivership action.
If you have any interest in one or more of the Receivership Funds
or Receivership Entities, either as an investor or creditor, you
must submit a proof of claim to the Receiver on or before
January 31, 2018.

If you do not submit completed proof of claim form by January 31,
2018, you will be forever barred from asserting any claim against
the Receivership Funds and Receivership Entities and you will not
be eligible to receive any distributions from the Receivership.

If you have not already received a Proof of Claim from the
Receiver, go to shrwood.com/saddleriver or e-mail the agent of
the Receiver at: SRAClaimsProcessing@JNDLA.com. If you have
already submitted a claim, there is no need to submit another in
response to this advertisement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

If you have any questions about this Notice, please contact the
Receiver at the e-mail address listed above or by telephone at
(650) 329-9996.

By Order of the Court, United States District Court, Northern
District of California


STEINHOFF INT'L: Class Actions Circling Amid Financial Woes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franz Wild, Janice Kew and Ruth David, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that it looked like Steinhoff International Holdings
NV had reached escape velocity from South Africa's deepening
economic gloom: A furniture retailer emulating Ikea's model and
global ambitions, built by men with their own compelling rags-to-
riches stories.

Then the debt-fueled rocket stalled and came crashing down.  From
her office overlooking Cape Town's waterfront, Sygnia Investment
Management Ltd.  Chief Executive Officer Magda Wierzycka watched
on her computer screen on Dec. 6 as Steinhoff's shares began a
two-day plunge that cut the price by 80 percent and lopped some
10 billion euros ($11.8 billion) from its market value.

Steinhoff said it couldn't release its financial results; it was
trying to figure out if there was a 6 billion-euro hole in the
balance sheet; and CEO Markus Jooste had quit.  All of a sudden,
investors who'd bet on Mr. Jooste and his billionaire Chairman
Christo Wiese were rushing to the exits.  Mr. Wiese had quit too.

"People were expecting an explanation from Steinhoff," said
Ms. Wierzycka, whose company oversees about $14 billion, mostly
in pension funds.  "Instead we got nothing. In the absence of any
real information, you tend to assume the worst."

On Dec. 19, its banks were set to meet with the company to
consider whether to keep the retailer afloat or dismantle it and
sell it off to get their money back.

Mr. Wiese's stellar reputation is in tatters, his $5 billion
fortune down to $2 billion. Surrounded by lawyers and advisers,
he sounded exhausted when he answered a call on Dec. 11.  "Well,
I'm alive," is all he would say.  Mr. Jooste didn't respond to
calls or text messages.  A Steinhoff spokeswoman didn't take
calls or reply to messages.

Mr. Wiese stepped down after Steinhoff said its accounting errors
stretch back into 2016.  His hold over the company eroded further
on Dec. 15 when creditors forced the sale of part of his stake.
To create breathing space, the embattled retailer will look to
raise cash by selling assets and try to persuade banks to
refinance its debt.  Still, with regulators from South Africa to
Germany probing the company and class-action lawyers circling,
its struggles are only beginning.

Banks are already unlikely to retrieve some of the 1.5 billion
euros they lent Mr. Wiese's own investment firm against Steinhoff
shares in 2016.

Bruno Steinhoff started the company in 1964 in Germany, buying
cheap East German furniture and selling it in the West.  In 1997,
he bought a similar South African company and listed in
Johannesburg the following year.  Mr. Jooste, 56, the gruff son
of a postal worker who'd qualified as an accountant and then
worked his way up in the world of business, became CEO.

Mr. Jooste expanded by buying other companies, the largest deal
coming in 2014, when his friend Wiese exchanged his budget
clothing brand, Pepkor Ltd., for stock worth $5.7 billion in
Steinhoff. He became the largest shareholder and chairman.
Mr. Wiese, 76, was from a humble background in Upington, a desert
outpost eight hours drive from both Johannesburg and Cape Town.

Stellenbosch Mafia
Messrs. Wiese and Jooste are the face of what South Africans call
the Stellenbosch Mafia, the close-knit group of wealthy
businessmen who have owned vineyards in the exclusive hills
around Cape Town. In an interview with biznews.com in 2016, Mr.
Jooste said 10 of the other executives at Steinhoff were his best
friends.

He's also said Swedish giant Ikea, founded by Ingvar Kamprad, was
his model.

"We purely follow what he did," Mr. Jooste said in an interview
with South Africa's Financial Mail magazine in October.  "Our
only problem was we couldn't build a brand.  So our strategy was
to buy the number one or two around Ikea in every country."

Buying Spree
Investors embraced the expansion story, and poured money into
Steinhoff; the share price tripled between late 2012 and early
2016.  Since the decade began, its international buying spree
encompassed French furniture retailer Conforama, British discount
chain Poundland Group Plc and Mattress Firm Holding Corp. of the
U.S. It tried and failed to acquire French electronics chain
Darty Plc in 2016.

Sygnia's Wierzycka said investors "hero worshiped" the pair.
Susan Gawith, a portfolio manager at Melville Douglas in
Johannesburg, who's covered Steinhoff off and on for 18 years,
said most analysts and investors thought following Wiese, South
Africa's richest man at one point, was a safe bet, even if there
were "many red flags."  Ms. Gawith herself didn't recommend
investing in the company.

'Warning Signs'
"They believed he was smart and made a lot of money and if you
invested in his companies you would do the same," Ms. Gawith said
in a phone interview.  "Steinhoff reminds many in South Africa of
Enron. There were lots of warning signs over the years, but
everybody was making too much money to take notice."

All the way back in 2007, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
spelled out some of those warning signs.  In a 56-page research
report, they asked why Steinhoff's accounts lacked "pivotal
information" about where it was generating revenue and why it
appeared to focus on tax breaks rather than the actual business.

Steinhoff managers complained, but were unable to point out any
factual errors, according to Andrew Cuffe, JPMorgan's head of
research in South Africa at the time.  In an email copying in
JPMorgan clients, one senior Steinhoff executive even accused the
analysts of "asking for inside information," Mr. Cuffe said in an
interview. Within a year the lender had stopped covering the
retailer.

Into the Mud
"That was dragging us into the mud and we didn't want to play in
the mud," Mr. Cuffe said.

Now the group has at least 200 subsidiaries and affiliates, and
had exposure to lenders and other creditors of almost 18 billion
euros at the end of March, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg.  In 2015, it registered in the Netherlands and moved
its main stock listing to Frankfurt.  In the next year alone, it
announced deals to buy or go into partnership with six companies
in five countries.

The crisis began when Deloitte LLP, after a decade as Steinhoff's
auditor, didn't sign off on its accounts, forcing Steinhoff to
announce that it couldn't produce audited financial statements.
German and Austrian prosecutors had already been investigating
possible accounting fraud since 2015.

Initially, Mr. Wiese stepped in to run Steinhoff, but the Public
Investment Corp., Africa's biggest fund manager and the
administrator of South African government pensions, objected.
Wiese's son Jacob, whom he'd previously put forward as a possible
successor, also resigned from the board.

On Dec. 6, a short-selling group called Viceroy Research
published a critical report online asserting that Steinhoff was
doing deals with entities that were linked to the company and
controlled by associates of Mr. Jooste to artificially inflate
earnings.  Viceroy, which describes itself as "a group of
individuals that see the world differently," provides only a
gmail address as contact information and declined to comment
further.

Ms. Wierzycka said that to her mind the report fit with what
Steinhoff has said so far.

"It's very seldom that fraud devours an entire company," said
Ms. Wierzycka, whose firm has some exposure to Steinhoff through
third parties and index funds.  "The ending hasn't been written
yet, but I think it's all up to the banks.  I don't think that
the company survives in its current form." [GN]


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Class Action Over WRK Models
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post Online, reports that for the
second time in 2017, a proposed class-action lawsuit has targeted
high-performance vehicles from Subaru of America.

A suit filed on Dec. 14 in federal court, Camden, alleges a
crankshaft defect can cause "premature catastrophic engine
failure" in Subaru's WRX and WRX STi vehicles made for the 2009-
2014 model years.

The suit, which calls the alleged defect "a serious safety
issue," seeks more than $5 million in damages for people who
owned or leased the cars.

"We will investigate this claim," Subaru spokesman Michael McHale
said of the new lawsuit.

"But in general we stand by the engine in question, which has a
long history of proven performance," said McHale.

Subaru is fighting a separate suit, filed in October, that seeks
to represent drivers who owned or leased WRX and WRX STi vehicles
made for model years 2013 and 2104. That suit claims contaminated
oil can carry metal particles, also leading to engine failure

The new suit was filed on behalf of a Missouri man, Michael
Augustine, whose 2010 Impreza WRX experienced engine failure in
November 2016.

It contends automotive engines typically should last for at least
120,000 miles but those in the Subaru vehicles "often fail at
less than 50 percent of their reasonably expected useful life."

Motorists then face a repair job -- usually the installation of a
new engine block -- that can cost from $6,000 to $8,000, the
lawsuit says.

It says Augustine's engine failed at 73,000 miles.

According to the lawsuit, the defective engines are "high
performance versions" of engines used in other Subaru models,
like the Forrester and Outback.

The lawsuit says Subaru modified the engine to nearly double the
horsepower, but allegedly failed to make "necessary" changes "to
prevent damage to the connecting rod bearings and main crankshaft
bearings."

The problem was "further exacerbated by inadequate oil
lubrication to the bearings and crankshaft" and by "severe
driving conditions," the suit asserts.

It contends engine failure in the vehicles "results in sudden
power loss and/or stalling that severely compromises the owner's
ability to maintain vehicle control."

Drivers also can face "sudden and catastrophic engine self-
destruction as overheated internal parts seize."

The suit estimates the class of eligible motorists could number
more than 100,000 people.

It contends a sampling of complaints posted online by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates the
engine defect "is widespread and constitutes an unreasonable
safety hazard."

It also argued Subaru knew of the defect, contending the company
monitors online comments "on Subaru vehicle enthusiast and
owners' websites and other consumer forums."

The suit includes several complaints filed with the NTHSA,
including one from a driver whose 2009 Impreza WRX failed at
9,000 miles.

The driver noted the breakdown occurred close to home, but added,
"I feel that an issue like this could present an unsafe situation
were it to happen on the many long road trips that I take, often
in unpopulated or rural areas."

Attorneys for Subaru in December moved to dismiss the lawsuit
alleging contaminated oil, also filed in federal court in Camden.

The motion argued that "alleged engine problem occurred after the
vehicle's warranty expired."  It also said the California man who
brought the suit had purchased the car second-hand, and so could
not argue he'd been defrauded by Subaru.

Subaru in 2016 settled a third class-action suit alleging
excessive oil consumption by multiple Subaru models made between
2011 and 2015.

Subaru denied any wrongdoing under the settlement, which extended
warranty protections for Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Legacy and
Outback models made from 2011 through 2015.

More than 665,000 people owned or leased vehicles in those
categories, according to the suit.

The settlement also provided free oil-consumption testing,
reimbursement for eligible expenses and, when necessary, a new
engine "and other countermeasures" in some vehicles with oil-
burning issues. [GN]


T.J. MAXX: "Mills" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
AARON MILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. T.J. MAXX, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05236-ELR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for T.J. Maxx, Inc., in multiple locations
across Georgia during his employment. The Plaintiff worked for
T.J. Maxx, Inc. as a loss prevention detective. The Plaintiff was
paid straight-time for the first 40 hours worked, despite working
in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment.

According to the complaint, the exact number of employees who
have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff,
and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time, but the
number is estimated to be at least 20 other loss prevention
employees.[BN]

TJ Maxx is an American department store chain, selling at prices
generally lower than other major similar stores. It has more than
1,000 stores, making it one of the largest clothing retailers in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343 2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352 5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Suit Moved to New York
-------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martonitti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey transferred the case captioned CAROL
SPACK, Plaintiff, v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP.; RECORD
TOWN, INC.; RECORD TOWN USA, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:17-cv-2687-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.) to the Northern District of New
York.

The case ("New Jersey Action") arises out of Spack's employment
for TWEC and her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").  She files on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated current and former TWEC
employees.  A similar matter, filed after this one but further
along in the litigation process, is pending in the Northern
District of New York, where the Defendants are located, as Roper
v. Trans World Ent. ("New York Action").

On March 7, 2017, the Defendants received an attorney demand
letter from the Shavitz Law Group, P.A. indicating they
represented multiple store managers ("SMs") employed by the
Defendants.  While the Shavitz Firm threatened to file a
nationwide class action alleging violations of the FLSA and
various state wage and hour laws, they were also willing to
engage in pre-suit settlement discussions, which they
entertained.  The Defendants' counsel entered into a tolling
agreement with the Shavitz Firm, effective April 1, 2017, in
order to proceed without prejudice to the Plaintiff's potential
claims.

On April 20, 2017, Spack filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated.  The Defendants' counsel certifies
pre-suit settlement discussions were still on-going with the
Shavitz Firm.  Spack alleges the Defendants violated the FLSA,
NJWHL, and the PMWA by failing to pay the correct overtime rate
when they used the fluctuating work week method to calculate
overtime wages.  The proposed class in the New Jersey Action
includes SMs and senior assistant managers (SAMs).

On May 19, 2017, the Shavitz Firm filed a lawsuit in the Northern
District of New York, which, according to the Defendants,
essentially brings the claims threatened by the Shavitz Firm's
initial demand.  The Defendants argue the filing of the New York
Action terminated the Tolling Agreement.  That issue is not
before the Court.  Based on representations by Defendants, the
New York Action has proceeded to discovery and has been referred
to mediation, scheduled to begin in January 2018.

On June 14, 2017, Defendants moved to (i) transfer the New Jersey
Action to the Northern District of New York; (ii) stay the case
pending resolution of the motion; (ii) dismiss Defendant Record
Town USA for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (iv) dismiss
Count Three for failure to state a claim.  Spack opposed the
motion, agreed to voluntarily dismiss Record Town USA, and cross-
moved to amend the Complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2017, while the motions were pending, Spack filed a
letter asking the Court to rule on the motions to prevent the
filing of a motion for equitable tolling and to prevent further
prejudice to potential Plaintiffs.  On Sept. 20, 2017, Spack
filed the motion for equitable tolling, arguing that good cause
exists to toll the statute of limitations because of the Courts'
delay and because potential class members may not be aware of
their legal rights or claims.

Between Oct. 12, 2017, and Nov. 3, 2017, another letter-writing
campaign took place.  The Defendants asked the Hon. Lois H.
Goodman, U.S.M.J., to stay discovery, while Spack asked Judge
Goodman to move ahead with a Rule 16 initial conference and even
served interrogatories.  Significantly, however, those letters
informed the Court that Spack filed a motion to intervene in the
New York Action on Sept. 29, 2017, asking that court to dismiss
the New York Action or transfer it to New Jersey.  On Nov. 16,
2017, the Court scheduled oral argument on the motions for Dec.
4, 2017.

All pending motions are opposed except that Spack agreed to
voluntarily dismiss Record Town USA without prejudice.

Judge Martinotti concludes that the Defendants have met their
burden to show a transfer to the Northern District of New York is
warranted.  Taking all relevant interests into consideration, he
is persuaded by the nature of the action, as well as both
parties' concession that the actions should be adjudicated in the
same district by one judge.  This indicates to the Court that, in
this case, Spack's individual interests may be outweighed by
larger, class-wide and public interests.

Notably, the existence of the Tolling Agreement did not impact
his decision.  Had no Tolling Agreement been executed and the
actions been filed in the order they were here, he cannot say
whether its decision would be different.  Practically speaking,
he says the interests of judicial efficiency and economy are best
served by the action being joined with the New York Action in the
Northern District of New York; that district is less congested,
the New York Action is moving forward, and mediation is scheduled
for January.  In this pre-certification stage, he has no doubt
the proposed class in the New York Action can be amended to
accommodate SAMs if necessary.

Taking into account the private and public interest factors and
the interests of justice, the Judge finds the Defendants met
their burden in demonstrating the motion should be transferred to
the Northern District of New York.

For these reasons, Judge Martinotti granted the Defendants'
Motion to Transfer.  Accordingly, the Judge administratively
terminated without prejudice and may be refiled in the Northern
District of New York: (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count
Three of the Complaint; (ii) Spack's Motion to Amend her
Complaint; and (iii) Spack's Motion for Equitable Tolling.  He
denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Stay.  Record Town USA
is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and, therefore, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Record Town USA, LLC for lack of
personal jurisdiction is denied as moot.  An appropriate order
will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/FrhzGU from Leagle.com.

CAROL SPACK, Plaintiff, represented by AMY CATHERINE BLANCHFIELD
-- ablanchfield@mashellaw.com -- MASHEL LAW L.L.C.

CAROL SPACK, Plaintiff, represented by STEPHAN T. MASHEL --
smashel@mashellaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN T. MASHEL & PETER
D. VALENZANO -- pvalenzano@mashellaw.com -- MASHEL LAW LLC.

TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Defendant, represented by JAMES
M. MCDONNELL -- McdonneJ@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. &
WILLIAM J. ANTHONY -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS P.C..

RECORD TOWN, INC, Defendant, represented by JAMES M. MCDONNELL,
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. & WILLIAM J. ANTHONY, JACKSON LEWIS P.C..


TRIS PHARMA: "Ahmed" Suit Alleges Retaliation
---------------------------------------------
TARIK AHMED, the Plaintiff, v. TRIS PHARMA, INC; KETAN MEHTA;
PETER CIANO; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No.
MID-L-007604-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants employed plaintiff as their Director of
Information Technology/Head of Technology from November 2013
until his unlawful discharge on May 5, 2017. The plaintiff
performed up to and beyond the reasonable expectations of his
employer. The plaintiff met with defendants' then Director of
Quality, Dominick DiPaolo. Mr. DiPaolo advised that he welcomed
plaintiff's hire as no one at the company understood or followed
Current Good Manufacturing Practices and that plaintiff's
knowledge and experience was needed to address ongoing Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") infractions.

Current Good Manufacturing Practices are regulations enforced by
the FDA to assure proper design, monitoring, and control of
manufacturing processes and facilities.  Shortly after his start,
plaintiff began to identify multiple manufacturing and quality
practice violations under federal law and FDA regulations.
Plaintiff engaged in further CEPA protected activity. Mr. Neubig
then turned to defendant Mehta and defendant Mehta began to
pressure plaintiff and his subordinates to grant Mr. Neubig his
desired access. Plaintiff stood fast in his refusal and explained
to defendant Mehta that the same was illegal.

In April 2016, plaintiff began reporting to the then-acting Chief
Financial Officer, defendant Ciano. In September 2016, defendant
Ciano began to pressure plaintiff to allow the quality department
to make all system approval decisions in the new ERP project.

Essentially, defendant Ciano was asking plaintiff to override the
system so as to allow the shipment of quarantined products to its
commercial customers. The Plaintiff refused, believing the same
to be in violation of FDA regulations. Following plaintiff's
objections and refusals, he learned that defendants were
falsifying the documentation release process in order to ship
quarantine products to the end customers, which itself was a
violation of federal law.

The following week, defendant Mehta prohibited plaintiff from
attending or supporting any task relating to the commercial sales
force. Additionally, defendant Ciano began attacking plaintiff's
ERP project work and demanded that plaintiff configure the system
to enable functionality that was contradictory to federal
guidelines.

Defendant Ciano's requests would have enabled defendants to ship
quarantined material to commercial customers, use unqualified
vendors, and suppress financial data from being generated by the
system when certain unlawful actions took place. To the extent
that plaintiff was separated from employment and to the extent
that the separation is contested, plaintiff requests equitable
reinstatement, with equitable back pay and front pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Silverman, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


UGL: Clime Capital Files Class Action Over Ichthys Writedowns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for Financial Review, reports that
investment group Clime Capital has filed a class action against
UGL in the Federal Court alleging the contractor delayed
informing investors about cost blowouts on a power plant contract
for INPEX's Ichthys gas project in late 2014.

The class action, which was signalled in November, alleges that
UGL breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct.  It was filed in the Victorian
district registry of the Federal Court on Dec. 18.

IMF Bentham will fund the claim and Phi Finney McDonald will
represent Clime Capital, which acquired several million shares in
UGL before it announced it had taken a $US170 million provision
on the power plant contract.

"Clime's decision to pursue this case as representative reflects
our anger at UGL's conduct in relation to the Ichthys project,"
said Clime chairman John Abernathy.

"We believe that institutional investors have an important role
to play in enforcing disclosure obligations, and recovering
losses for our clients and other investors."

Phi Finney McDonald director Odette McDonald said Clime had
alleged that UGL had failed to disclose the power station it was
building for the Ichthys LNG project was running behind schedule
and was subject to increased project costs.

"This was in circumstances where UGL's joint venture partner
[CH2M Hill] had identified these issues at least three months
earlier," Ms McDonald said.  "The claim seeks to recover loss and
damage suffered by Clime and group members as a result of the
alleged contraventions."

The action, which has been under consideration for more than a
year, will claim tens of millions of dollars for losses suffered
by investors after UGL's stock slumped in November 2014 after it
revealed problems with the power contract.

UGL's stock fell almost 15 per cent on November 6, losing $1.01
to $5.89 after it disclosed the additional costs.  The stock fell
further in subsequent days.

The UGL class action was initially considered by Slater & Gordon
in 2016, but was delayed by the departure of lawyers who
established their own boutique firm, Phi Finney McDonald.

UGL is now owned by construction group CIMIC, which walked away
from the power contract in February 2017 after buying the smaller
contractor in a hostile takeover in late 2016.  Former UGL
chairman Kate Spargo is now a non-executive director on CIMIC's
board.

CH2M Hill has also subsequently been acquired, with US
engineering group Jacobs buying the smaller American firm in
August.

Melbourne-based boutique law firm Elliot Legal has been
considering a separate class action against UGL.

Separately, activists opposed to the construction of the
Carmichael coal mine in Queensland have welcomed Downer EDI's
decision to walk away from an agreement with Adani to help build
the mine after investors raised concerns.

"Downer were guaranteed to continue incurring reputational damage
and lost revenue through disruptive protest action and local
council tender boycotts," said Ben Pennings, a spokesperson for
Galilee Blockade.

Galilee Blockade now plans to direct protests at engineering and
design group AECOM, which has a contract with Adani to design a
proposed rail line from the Carmichael mine to the coast. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Immigrant Detainees' Sexual Assault
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ballesteros, writing for Newsweek, reports that more than
70 members of Congress lambasted the Department of Homeland
Security on Dec. 18 for failing to investigate thousands of
sexual assault complaints filed by immigrants in their custody
over the last decade.

In a letter addressed to four federal officials, including White
House chief of staff and DHS acting inspector general, John
Kelly, the 71 signees called on Homeland Security and its
secondary agencies to investigate the claims immediately.

The letter is predicated off of a class-action civil rights
complaint filed April 11 with Homeland Security by Community
Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC), a
progressive advocacy group.

"We write to express our deep concerns about the prevalence of
reports of sexual abuse, assault and harassment in U.S.
immigration detention facilities, the lack of adequate government
investigation into these reports, and the government's refusal to
disclose relevant records," reads the letter.

According to CIVIC, Homeland Security received a total of 33,126
complaints of sexual and/or physical abuse from January 2010 to
July 2016. Of those, only 225 -- .07 percent -- have been
investigated.

Three-fourth of these complaints were levied against Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection
(CPB) officers and personnel.

In a statement to NBC released at the time of CIVIC's mass
complaint, Homeland Security dismissed the veracity of the
complaints:

"During the 6-year time frame covered by this report, ICE, for
instance, recorded more than two million admissions to its
detention facilities nationwide.  While ICE's goal is to prevent
all sexual abuse among its custody population, given the volume
of individuals who annually pass through its detention system,
the agency believes the overall incidence of such activity is
very low."

The letter sent to Homeland Security on Dec. 15 offers a handful
of equally harrowing tales of rape, abuse and neglect.

"Maria Ortiz Cortez was transferred to the West County Detention
Facility in California after she was sexually assaulted at the
Yuba County Jail and filed a complaint, further isolating her
from her support system in the surrounding community."

"Damion "Latoya" Ricketts, a transgender woman, was sexually
harassed by a corrections officer at the Santa Ana City Jail in
July 2016 when he performed a degrading strip search on her in
the men's changing room and demanded she slowly remove each
article of her clothing, hand them to him, and run her fingers
through his hair."

The letter goes on to criticize ICE's petition to the National
Archives and Record Administration (NARA), submitted in 2017, to
approve its timetable for retaining or destroying records related
to its detention centers, including those related to sexual
assault, solitary confinement and deaths of those in custody.

Human rights organizations immediately criticized the move,
saying it impairs the government's ability to stop and prevent
abusive behavior at the hands of ICE.

"ICE shouldn't be allowed to purge important records and keep its
operations out of the public eye," the American Civil Liberties
Union said in a statement in August.

The 71 members of Congress requested that ICE rescind its NARA
request to delete its records.  They also called on the Justice
Department "to launch a comprehensive pattern or practice
investigation into sexual assault" in detention centers, and for
DHS to release "aggregate data on complaints of sexual abuse" at
its facilities.

In an emailed statement, ICE says that accusations of sexual
assault at its detention centers are always fully investigated:

"While ICE cannot comment on pending investigations, the agency
has zero tolerance for sexual abuse and assault and takes every
allegation seriously.  In accordance with federal law, ICE has
implemented strong protections against sexual abuse and assault
of individuals in our custody, including with respect to
screening, staff training, detainee education, medical and mental
health care, reporting, investigation, and oversight.  ICE
facilities are inspected annually and independently audited --
with safeguards against sexual assault as a primary focus -- to
ensure compliance with DHS regulations.  Accusations of alleged
unlawful conduct are investigated thoroughly and appropriate
action is taken to ensure the safety and security of those
involved and others in ICE custody." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Undocumented Immigrants Must Be Allowed Abortions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Astor, writing for The New York Times, reports that two
undocumented immigrants in United States custody must be allowed
to have abortions, a federal judge ruled on Dec. 18, objecting to
a Trump administration policy.

The immigrants, both 17, entered the United States illegally and
are being held in government-run shelters.  Under a policy
announced in March by the Department of Health and Human
Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, federally funded
shelters cannot take "any action that facilitates" an abortion
for an unaccompanied minor without the approval of the office's
director.

Department officials argue that the teenagers, referred to in
court documents as Jane Roe and Jane Poe, can obtain abortions by
returning to their home countries or finding an American sponsor.
But Judge Tanya S. Chutkan noted in her order on Dec. 18 that the
approval process for potential sponsors is long and complex.  In
fact, one of Roe's relatives -- a United States citizen -- has
filed an application but has yet to complete the vetting
requirements.

"If defendants are not immediately restrained from prohibiting
shelter staff from transporting J.R. and J.P. to abortion
facilities or otherwise interfering with or obstructing their
access to an abortion," Judge Chutkan wrote, "J.R. and J.P. will
both suffer irreparable injury in the form of, at a minimum,
increased risk to their health, and perhaps the permanent
inability to obtain a desired abortion to which they are legally
entitled."

Already, Roe's pregnancy is too far advanced for a medication
abortion; instead, she will need surgery.  And Poe is in the late
second trimester, rapidly approaching the limit for obtaining a
legal abortion in the state where she is being held.

Brigitte Amiri, one of the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers
representing the teenagers, said it was impossible to say exactly
how far along Poe's pregnancy was because she had not been able
to get an ultrasound.

The court has moved quickly since the lawsuit was filed on
Dec. 15.  But Judge Chutkan, of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, stayed her order for 24 hours to
allow for an emergency appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The government
filed that appeal almost immediately, and also asked the Supreme
Court for an emergency stay of Judge Chutkan's order.

On Dec. 18, the Court of Appeals extended the stay for an
additional day to give itself time to examine the case.

The Administration for Children and Families, of which the Office
of Refugee Resettlement is a part, said in a statement that it
was "deeply disappointed in the decision to grant a temporary
restraining order that will compel H.H.S. to facilitate abortions
for minors when they are not medically necessary."

"H.H.S.-funded facilities that provide temporary shelter and care
for unaccompanied alien minors should not become way stations for
these children to get taxpayer-facilitated abortions," the
statement said.

The abortions would be paid for with private funds, not taxpayer
dollars, Judge Chutkan noted in her order.  The government, she
wrote, is trying to claim "ultimate authority to unilaterally
veto the reproductive choices of the unaccompanied minors in its
custody."

The case is very similar to that of another undocumented teenager
who had an abortion in October after the District of Columbia
appeals court ruled in her favor.  The A.C.L.U. has also filed a
broader class-action lawsuit, Garza v. Hargan, seeking to stop
the Trump administration from limiting unaccompanied minors'
access to abortion.  In addition to refusing to facilitate
abortions, that lawsuit says, the government has required minors
seeking abortions to visit anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy
centers." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Cambodian Detainees Can stay to Fight Deportations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Chen and Ben Sokhean, writing for The Phnom Penh Post,
report that more than 50 Cambodians who were set to be removed
from the US on Dec. 18 can temporarily remain in the country to
fight their deportation orders due to a last-minute decision from
a US judge that immigration advocates celebrated as a "Hail
Mary".

Christina So, spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Asian Americans
Advancing Justice -- Asian Law Caucus, called the temporary
restraining order issued by US District Judge Cormac Carney
"exciting news".

"The government had ordered a chartered flight with at least 50
Cambodians aboard to leave Texas on Dec. 18 to return these
detainees to Cambodia," So said in an email on Dec. 15.  "This
temporary restraining order literally stopped that airplane."

The Asian Law Caucus launched a class action lawsuit against the
US government in November arguing that the deportations violated
the due process rights of the Cambodian detainees.

So said the Dec. 15 restraining order means that roughly 200
Cambodians who were detained in recent US immigration raids can
stay to fight their deportations.

The US government has been deporting Cambodian permanent
residents who commit certain crimes since 2002, but the program
became a flashpoint in 2016 after the Kingdom temporarily stopped
accepting deportees, citing human rights concerns.

The deportations have been criticised for tearing apart families
and for repenalising offenders who have already paid their debt
to society.  Many of the returnees, most of whom went to the US
as refugee children, have never set foot in Cambodia and were not
aware they were not US citizens at the time they committed the
offences that precipitated their deportation.

In a speech at the Peace Palace on Dec. 15, Hun Sen said the
government would reactivate a program to find the bodies of
American soldiers who went missing in action in Cambodia if the
US withdrew sanctions imposed on Cambodian foreign affairs
officials after the country stopped accepting the deportees.

"We are implementing the agreement and interviewing people now,"
Hun Sen said.

Bill Herod, founder of the Phnom Penh-based Returnee Integration
Support Centre, praised the judge's order as a "Hail Mary" move.

"The order will certainly not stop all deportations from the US
to Cambodia, but it may buy time for legal manoeuvres that may
help in some particularly troubling cases," Mr. Herod said in an
email.  "It is certainly encouraging to see this issue get the
serious attention it deserves."

Mr. Herod said the NGO was scrambling to prepare for the new
arrivals -- even knocking down barriers in their office building
to make more room to house the arrivals -- when they heard the
news.  Cambodian officials said they were not aware of the
development but confirmed later that the flight was indeed
cancelled, according to Mr. Herod.

Ministry of Interior spokesman Khieu Sopheak and immigration head
Sok Phal could not be reached on Dec. 17.

The US judge's order said halting the deportations was necessary
"until the Court can give proper consideration to the complex
issues presented in this action".  The next court hearing on the
restraining order will be January 11. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Awaits Verdict in J20 Inauguration Protest Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Adler-Bell, writing for The Intercept, reports that it's
bleak year for the 194 protesters, medics, and journalists facing
multiple felony charges stemming from their arrests surrounding
Donald Trump's presidential inauguration on January 20, 2017.
Vilified by much of the mainstream press and largely ignored by
the liberal resistance movement, the J20 defendants -- as they're
collectively known -- have huddled around each other and their
tight network of supporters.  On Dec. 15, a jury began
deliberations in the first J20 trial, of six defendants, on a
raft of counts; a verdict could come as soon as Dec. 18.
However, there was a rare glimmer of hope: Before closing
arguments, Judge Lynn Leibovitz of the D.C. Superior Court threw
out the "inciting a riot" charge, a felony with a maximum 10 year
sentence.

Despite throwing out the incitement charges, Judge Leibovitz
declined to acquit the defendants on seven other charges,
including five counts of felony property destruction, misdemeanor
rioting, and misdemeanor conspiracy to riot. Those charges
together carry a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.

"It's been a long month for these six defendants and their
supporters," said Sam Menefee-Libey of the Dead City Legal Posse,
a group that organizes support and advocates for the J20
defendants.  "We're nervous, obviously, but we're resolute. And
the feeling of solidarity amongst everyone is powerful."

What the acquittal means for the remaining 188 defendants is not
yet clear.  Prosecutors may have stronger evidence of incitement
against other protesters, especially those who planned the action
or issued directions during the march. (Some of the organizers
will go on trial early this year.) But this first failure is
indicative of a larger problem with the government's case: a lack
of individualized evidence against the majority of those
arrested.

Judge Leibovitz's unusual decision to grant the defense's motion
for a judgment of acquittal is a testament to the paltriness of
the prosecution's case for "incitement."  Such motions are
practically a formality in criminal proceedings; judges almost
always defer to the jury to decide on the sufficiency of the
facts.  In this case, Judge Leibovitz concluded that "no
reasonable juror" could find the prosecution's evidence
sufficient to establish the charge of incitement.  "None of [the
defendants] engaged in conduct that amounted to urging others,"
Judge Leibovitz said.

The prosecution's case is built around hours upon hours of video
captured by police body cameras, reporters, undercover cops,
confiscated cellphones, and far-right groups, such as the media
provocateurs of Project Veritas and the Oath Keepers militia. One
of the defendants, independent journalist Alexei Wood, had his
livestream of the event used as evidence against him and his co-
defendants.  In his video, Wood can be heard cheering while
others graffiti walls and break windows.  On Dec. 13, Judge
Leibovitz decided that cheering isn't enough to establish
incitement. "Personal enthusiasm for the destruction," Judge
Leibovitz said, "is qualitatively different from urging others to
destroy."

Only a tiny fraction of those arrested on January 20 could have
personally engaged in acts of property destruction.  The
prosecution doesn't dispute this fact.  "We don't believe the
evidence is going to show that any of these six individuals
personally took that crowbar or that hammer and hit the limo or
personally bashed those windows of that Starbucks in," Assistant
U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff told the jury in her opening
statement on November 20. "You don't personally have to be the
one that breaks the window to be guilty of rioting."

Though it sometimes gets lost amid breathless reporting on masked
anarchists, shattered glass, and burning limos, the real story of
J20 is one of the state attempting to imprison almost 200 people
for criminal acts committed by a handful.  The prosecution's
novel theory of group liability -- in which anyone in proximity
to criminal behavior during a protest can be held liable for
those crimes -- is a grave threat to the First Amendment, the
right to assemble, and the right to protest, according to civil
rights advocates.  "The prosecution's case is utterly bizarre and
essentially rests on both guilt by association and
criminalization of dissent," said Chip Gibbons, the policy and
legislative counsel for Defending Rights and Dissent.

Unable to marshal sufficient evidence against each individual
arrested on January 20, the government has opted instead to
criminalize the group as whole.  "It's the group that's the
danger," Ms. Kerkhoff, the prosecutor, explained at a hearing in
July, "the group that's criminal." In so doing, the government
has criminalized the very things that constitute the march as a
march: aesthetic unity, chanting anti-capitalist slogans, and
moving together through the street -- all of which are protected
First Amendment activities.

The prosecution, of course, doesn't see it that way.  "We've been
here for the last several weeks because these six defendants and
their co-conspirators agreed to destroy your city," said
Assistant U.S. Attorney Rizwan Qureshi at the trial.  "And now
they're hiding behind the First Amendment."

Despite being a positive development for the defendants in
question, Judge Leibovitz's decision to dismiss the incitement
charge leaves the state's theory of liability largely intact. The
prosecution has argued that by wearing black, meeting at a
predefined location, moving as a cohesive unit, and remaining in
the streets after property destruction began, the entire group
aided and abetted the tiny fraction who smashed windows and
turned over trash bins.  In his closing argument on Dec. 14,
Mr. Qureshi likened the black bloc -- the protest tactic used on
January 20 -- to a driver who waits outside while the "muscle"
commits a robbery.  "That's exactly what this sea of black was,"
he intoned.  "It was the getaway car."

"The J20 cases are unique in that many of the core issues are not
centered around factual disputes," Mr. Gibbons, the counsel for
Defending Rights and Dissent, told The Intercept.  The
prosecution and defense agree on the essential facts: Property
damage took place on January 20 and only a few people -- none of
whom stood trial -- actually broke anything. "The dispute,"
Mr. Gibbons said, "comes down to what the First Amendment does or
doesn't protect."

In a jury trial, it's up to judges to rule on the law and juries
to rule on facts.  But Judge Leibovitz has so far declined to
take up the defense's constitutional challenges.  In denying a
defense motion to dismiss the charges in September, Judge
Leibovitz declared that she is constrained by the Supreme Court's
1968 ruling in United States v. Matthews, which upheld the
constitutionality of the D.C. riot statute.  So long as a
defendant "willfully associates" with an "assemblage" causing or
threatening tumult and violence, the court found in the Matthews
case, they can be charged with rioting. (That ruling, as I
reported elsewhere, was based on a racially inflected distinction
between rioting and legitimate protest.)

When, on Dec. 13, defense attorney Jamie Heine reminded Judge
Leibovitz that wearing black and marching with a group of
anarchists are both protected First Amendment activities, Judge
Leibovitz replied, with exasperation, "I'm really asking you to
focus in on the facts, not just to state constitutional
principles."  In a heated exchange over jury instructions, Judge
Leibovitz told the defense, not incorrectly, that it's not the
jury's responsibility to "decide what the First Amendment allows
and what it prohibits."  She added, "What they must decide is
whether the defendants have committed the offenses charged."

Meanwhile, many of the facts on which the prosecution bases its
case are themselves absurd.  "What do you need a medic with gauze
for?" Mr. Qureshi asked of Brittne Lawson, an oncology nurse from
Pittsburgh who attended the protest as a medic.  "I thought this
was a protest." While organized medical volunteers have attended
protests from the Arab Spring, to Occupy Wall Street, to Standing
Rock, to Charlottesville, Mr. Qureshi saw something sinister in
Lawson's bag of medical supplies, which were entered into
evidence.

"She wasn't prepared for a march or a protest. She was prepared
for war," said Mr. Qureshi.  "She was going to be there to help
members who are in black, who get pepper-sprayed, who get hurt
because they're provoking the police, to mend them and then get
them up on their way so they can continue their destruction."
(The nurses' code of ethics binds registered nurses to serve all
their patients regardless of the unique circumstances and
maintains that treatment is not tantamount to endorsement.)

In an effort to impugn photojournalist Alexei Wood's intentions
at the march, Mr. Qureshi also questioned why a self-declared
journalist would be knowledgeable about protest policing.  "How
is he an up-and-coming journalist and he's talking about a
kettle?" he asked, with folksy incredulity. "I didn't know what a
kettle was before this case.  Did you?" (The admission was
remarkable from a prosecutor representing the District of
Columbia, which has settled numerous expensive class-action
lawsuits against protesters illegally kettled, or cornered
protesters into a small area, by its police department.)

The defense, too, is constrained by the Matthews precedent,
trapped in the bizarro world of the government's theory of group
liability.  Defense attorneys have spoken to the core First
Amendment principles at stake in the case, but they've also spent
time in court introducing doubt about whether their clients
willfully associated with the so-called riot.  Did they know
there were windows breaking? Did they stay with the group the
whole time? Did they wear black for tactical or purely aesthetic
reasons? It is a sound legal strategy, given the circumstances,
and thanks to the meagerness of the state's evidence, Mr. Gibbons
told me, it may be enough to exonerate their clients.

One can't help feeling that all this quibbling is beside the
point.  By allowing this prosecution to proceed, Judge Leibovitz
has implied that it's acceptable for the police to
indiscriminately mass arrest protesters without individualized
probable cause, then proceed to prosecute them in connection with
criminal activity they themselves did not commit.

In a sense, the defendants have already been sentenced, to months
if not years of waiting and wondering, shuttling back and forth
between their homes and Washington for hearings.  They've been
sentenced to sleepless nights and anxious days, to threats of
violence and doxing from far-right extremists. Some have lost
jobs and strained relationships.

Brittne Lawson, the nurse, was forced to quit her job at
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to deal with her charges.
Rosa Roncales, a Henrico County, Virginia firefighter, was
reassigned to desk duty.  Elizabeth Lagesse, a former graduate
student, has put her life on hold and moved to D.C. to mitigate
the costs of travel from her former home in Baltimore. At a press
conference in November, Ms. Lagesse said that whether or not the
prosecution's case stands up in court, a "punishment has already
been delivered." It was, she said, "the stress, the disruption in
their lives."  These consequences are "doing a lot of the job of
suppressing speech, of suppressing dissent, of contaminating
these people."

Even if the jury somehow found the prosecution's evidence
sufficient, there may be a remaining source of hope for the
defendants.  Though jurors will be instructed to rule narrowly on
the facts -- not on the consequences the defendants may face or
the constitutionality of the law -- they're ultimately empowered
to decide on the basis of their values.  When a jury encounters a
plainly unjust law, it is their right to nullify the verdict,
whether or not the facts of the case meet the offense charged.

"It's a travesty this case ever made it to a jury," said
Menefee-Libey of the Dead City Legal Posse.  "For now, all we can
do is keep up the fight, no matter what happens.  We'll keep
fighting until all of us are free." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Vacate Nov. 20 Orders in Addicks Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, Master
No. 17-3000L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims denied the Government's Motion To Vacate four
Orders issued on Nov. 20, 2017.

The Government asserts, among other things, that the Nov. 20,
2017 Orders (i) do not permit resolution of RCFC 12 motions; (ii)
do not permit resolution of RCFC 12 motions until after discovery
is complete, which conflicts with the purpose of RCFC 12(b)
motions; (iii) are problematic, because there is no provision in
the RCFC that contemplates transferring the same case to more
than one judge, so that multiple judges may rule on the merits in
a single case; and (iv) should be vacated, because they
indefinitely delay determination of class certification.

Judge Braden finds that the requirements of RCFC 16(b)(1)(B),
requiring the Court to issue a scheduling order after consulting
with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a
scheduling conference, were more than satisfied prior to issuance
of the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders and raises a serious concern about
the care taken by the Government to ensure that assertions in the
Dec. 1, 2017 Motion were accurate.

She also finds that the Court's resolution of a RCFC 12(b) motion
is not necessarily dependent on the completion of all discovery.
The type of the RCFC 12 motion that the Government may file, and
the arguments that the Government makes in support thereof, will
dictate the when and the manner of the Court's resolution.

The Judge further finds that by separating the claims and making
functional assignments among judges with experience with Takings
Clause and similar complex cases, the Court's Nov. 13 and 20,
2017 Orders fully comply both with RCFC 1 and RCFC Appendix A I.2
to allow these cases to be adjudicated in a just, speedy, and
inexpensive manner, albeit these case management decisions may
well offend the Government's sense of what it perceives to be
well-established and important litigation norms.

As the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders state, the Court has determined that
the issue of class certification is premature at this juncture,
the Judge will not vacate the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders.  She says no
part of the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders suggests an indefinite delay
determination of class certification.  There is nothing in Rule
23 that governs class certification which precludes the Court
from examining the merits of the plaintiff's claims on a proper
Rule 12 motion to dismiss or Rule 56 motion for summary judgment
simply because such a motion precedes resolution of the issue of
class certification.

Finally, Judge Braden holds that the intent of the Court's Nov.
20, 2017 Orders was to assign jurisdictional discovery and any
motion filed under RCFC 12 to one judge and assign a different
judge to handle other pre-trial discovery and any RCFC 56
motions, to accommodate the Plaintiffs' request to be allowed to
a complete discovery and make a record, while jurisdictional
issues were adjudicated to a final judgment.  Nevertheless, the
Court is willing to consider two alternative approaches.

First, whether the jurisdictional issues are so intertwined with
the merits of the case that the interests of justice require the
Court instead to establish a scheduling order setting a target
date for a liability trial in the late fall of 2018.  Second, the
Court also will consider any other reasonable and instructive
recommendations about how to adjudicate jurisdiction and
dispositive issues in these cases, within the general temporal
parameters set forth in the Nov. 20, 2017 Orders.  These
submissions should be filed with the Court no later than 5:00
p.m. on Dec. 18, 2017.

For these reasons, Judge Braden denied the Government's Dec. 1,
2017 Motion To Vacate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/gIUEKk 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.


UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO GARCIA; individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, APOLONIO PICENO PEREZ; individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, ROSALIA ARCE; individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL
BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY CO., a California corporation,
GRACE BRUSSEAU, an individual, LEONARD BRUSSEAU, an individual,
and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17887036
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs and the other non-exempt hourly employees were
employed by Defendants to perform cleaning, driving, janitorial
work, waxing, window cleaning, Amtrak train waste clean-up, and,
related duties for UBS during the relevant time period, which
began four years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this
action. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Labor Code, the
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order and the Business
and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to give the
non-exempt hourly employees 30-minute, off-duty meal periods
during each shift worked of five hours or more, to provide all
10-minute rest breaks required during the non-exempt hourly
employees' work shifts, and to pay the non-exempt hourly
employees any premium compensation to which they are entitled for
working through the meal and/or rest periods. In addition,
Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of the hours
worked by the non-exempt hourly employees and/or failed to
provide accurate payroll statements to all non-exempt hourly
employees documenting the hours worked in each payroll period
and/or fabricated payroll statements to avoid paying overtime
wages. The Defendants have had and continue to have a policy and
practice of denying overtime and double time compensation to non-
exempt hourly employees despite their entitlement to such
compensation under the Labor Code and Wage Order. As a result of
these policies and practices, Defendants have failed to pay the
non-exempt hourly employees overtime compensation for the time in
excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week that they
worked during the relevant liability period.

Universal Building Services provides building maintenance
services in northern and central California. It offers cleaning
and sweeping services for commercial facilities, such as business
offices, bank branches, churches, schools, food and beverage
processing facilities and biotechnology laboratories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia Villegas, Esq.
          VILLEGAS CARRERA, LLP
          170 Columbus Ave, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 989 8000
          Facsimile: (415) 989 8028

               - and -

          Ike M. Kaludi, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA TRIAL LAW GROUP, PC
          828 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 109
          Albany, CA 94706
          Telephone: (415) 967 4900
          Facsimile: (415) 967 4901


WEST KENDALL IMPORTS: "Rodas" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Gabriel Rodas, and
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. West
Kendall Imports, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-26725 CA 01, was
removed/transferred/reprimanded from the 11th Judicial Circuit of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-24711-CMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

West Kendall is new and used car dealer located in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for West Kendall Imports, LLC:

          Melissa Segarra Zinkil, Esq.
          James Scott Bramnick, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive
          Suite 1100 West Tower
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6147
          Telephone: (561) 671 3675
          E-mail: Melissa.Zinkil@akerman.com
                  james.bramnick@akerman.com


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Wants Michigan Residents to Join PFAS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Huffman, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that consumer
advocate and environmental activist Erin Brockovich wants West
Michigan residents to join a class action suit against shoe
manufacturer Wolverine Worldwide.

Ms. Brockovich held a town hall meeting on Dec. 6 to let
residents know what work she has done and plans to do for them.

Ms. Brockovich urges residents dealing with the groundwater
contamination to join the class action lawsuit against shoe
manufacturer Wolverine Worldwide because "there is strength in
numbers."

"Big corporations can get away with a lot of their bad deeds
because they can settle with one family, then maybe that family's
neighbor doesn't want to take action. A class action suit helps
bring folks together to take on big companies," Ms. Brockovich
said.

Wolverine Worldwide is believed to have caused the contamination
by dumping toxic chemicals known as per-and polyflouralkyl
substances -- or PFAS -- at several dump sites in Northern Kent
County.

Ms. Brockovich, who has been involved in other class action suits
regarding PFAS, says residents reached out to her with their
concerns months ago.

"So I'm here to give them permission to ask questions, to speak
up, to be concerned, and to legitimize that," she said.

Ms. Brockovich says residents can be deterred from taking action
because they aren't experts.

"They don't have to be any of that to ask questions, to be
concerned about their child, and to know there is a toxic
compound lurking around in their water," she said.

While most resident at the town hall were glad to join the suit,
some were a bit wary of the lawyers coming into town.

Amy Williams believes the lawyers are getting involved for more
reasons than just helping people.

"I think the lawyers are all attracted to this national story and
they want to get a piece of the action," Williams said.

Ms. Williams and her family came to the town hall in shirts that
read "We are PFOS'd off."

Ms. Williams, who is battling stage four cancer, lives in
Rockford.  She says her family had been drinking well water for
about 17 years before getting on municipal water.

"I just wonder if what I'm going through is from the water.  And
now my daughters grew up drinking that water, what's their
future?" she asked.

No representatives from Wolverine Worldwide spoke at the town
hall, but the company did publish an article on its blog
WeAreWolverine.com addressed to Ms. Brockovich.

The company wants her to know it has been working with state and
local departments to address the water issue for months.

Ms. Brockovich didn't acknowledge the blog post at the meeting.
[GN]


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Brockovich Attends PFAS Class Action Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
April Stevens and Noah Fromson, writing for WZZM-TV, report that
the people of Kent County deserve to know the truth about the
PFAS water contamination that could be detrimental to their
health, said environmental activist Erin Brockovich on Dec. 16.

Ms. Brockovich is widely-known for exposing a hexivalent chromium
contamination in Hinkley, Calif., more than 20 years ago,
dramatized in the self-titled movie, Erin Brockovich.  She
visited Comstock Park High School for a town hall led by three
law firms that recently filed a class action lawsuit against
Wolverine Worldwide, 3M and Waste Management.

The lawsuit says the three companies "dumped toxic waste and
polluted the groundwater in Belmont, Rockford and other areas in
Kent County."  Wolverine Worldwide dumped sludge from its tannery
containing PFAS chemicals at an old landfill on House Street in
the 1960s.

"I continue to see this lack of transparency," Ms. Brockovich
said.  "This blatant disregard for any oversight and willy-nilly
throwing your hazardous waste wherever you want, and it's finding
its way into our water supply . . . it continues to go on."

The next step is to work backwards and uncover the whole truth of
Wolverine's dumping practices over the years, she said.

"This PFOS/PFOA, it didn't show up today," Ms. Brockovich said.
"It's been around for a really long time, which we're already
learning.  It's getting a piece of the puzzle and putting it here
and another piece and putting it here.  That's where we are in
the process."

Wolverine Worldwide has tested more than 1,000 private wells in
Plainfield and Algoma Townships and found nearly 200 contaminated
with PFAS.  Thirty wells exceed the Environmental Protection
Agency's lifetime safe drinking water advisory level of 70 parts
per trillion.  Plainfield Township's municipal water also tests
regularly around eight parts per trillion.

"It's time to move forward in this case and to start the march
forward in trying to get relief for these residents," said
Sharon Almonrode, an attorney for Miller Law, one of the firms
that brought the lawsuit.

State Rep. Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, who introduced a House
bill to set Michigan's standard for PFOA safe drinking water at
five parts per trillion, attended the town hall.

"I've heard from folks: local, state and federal disappointment
in the responses of all those levels of government," Ms. Brinks
said.  "So I think this is a real call from our friends and
neighbors here to examine our response. Are we doing enough?"

Ms. Brockovich said the people of Kent County will be
instrumental in her work on the case,

"Nobody knows your territory better than you," she told the crowd
of a couple hundred.  "I will listen to you.  I will believe
you." [GN]


YAZAKI CORP: March 12 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

PRODUCT(S):
INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS

THIS RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

Case No. 12-md-02311
Honorable Marianne O. Battani

12-cv-00201-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION
WITH YAZAKI DEFENDANTS, AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND
SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO USE A PORTION OF SETTLEMENT
PROCEEDS FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASERS OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSTRUMENT PANEL
CLUSTERS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS (OR
THEIR CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OR JOINT VENTURES)
FROM JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 27, 2016.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?


This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The
purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement
with Defendants Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North America, Inc.
(collectively, "Yazaki"). Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, Yazaki will pay a total of $7,700,000 (the "Yazaki
Settlement Fund") and provide cooperation to assist Plaintiff in
the prosecution of the claims against the remaining Defendants.

The Notice is also to inform you that Settlement Class Counsel
will make a request to use up to twenty percent (20%) of the
Yazaki Settlement Fund for litigation expenses.

This litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate to
Instrument Panel Clusters purchased directly from a
Defendant. For purposes of the settlement, Instrument Panel
Clusters (also referred to as meters) means the mounted
array of instruments and gauges housed in front of the driver of
a motor vehicle.

If you purchased one or more Instrument Panel Clusters in the
United States directly from any of the Defendants identified
below during the period from January 1, 1998 through December 27,
2016 (the "Class Period"), you are a member of the Yazaki
Settlement Class (as defined below) and have the rights and
options summarized here:

   * You may remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class and be
eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund under a claims
procedure that will be instituted in the future;

   * You may exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class,
in which case you will not be bound by the settlement and will
not be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund;

   * If you do not exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement
Class, you may object in writing to the proposed Yazaki
settlement and to the request to use a portion of the Yazaki
Settlement Fund to pay for litigation expenses, and appear at the
hearing at which the Court will consider whether the Yazaki
settlement should be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable
and whether a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund may be used
to pay for litigation expenses; and

   * You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your
own counsel at your own expense. You do not need to take any
action at this time if you wish to remain in the Yazaki
Settlement Class. You should retain all your records of
Instrument Panel Cluster purchases for use in the claims
procedure that will be instituted at a later date.

WHO IS IN THE YAZAKI SETTLEMENT CLASS?
On March 21, 2017, the Court certified a Direct Purchaser Yazaki
Settlement Class (the "Yazaki Settlement Class") for purposes of
disseminating notice of the proposed Yazaki settlement. The
Yazaki Settlement Class is defined as follows:
All direct purchasers of motor vehicle Instrument Panel Clusters
in the United States directly from any of the Defendants (or
their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures) from
January 1, 1998 through December 27, 2016.

For purposes of the Yazaki Settlement Class definition set forth
above, the following are Defendants: Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki
North America, Inc.; Continental Automotive Electronics LLC,
Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. and Continental Automotive
Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Continental"); Denso Corporation
and Denso International America, Inc. (collectively, "Denso")
(Denso and Continental collectively may be referred to as the
"non-settling Defendants"); and Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd., N.S.
International Ltd., and New Sabina Industries, Inc.
(collectively, "Nippon Seiki").

Plaintiff ACAP, L.L.C., f/k/a Aguirre, Collins & Aikman, LLC has
been appointed by the Court to serve as the Class Representative
for the Yazaki Settlement Class. The Court has appointed the law
firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; and Spector
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. to serve as Co-Lead Counsel for the
Direct Purchaser Yazaki Settlement Class ("Settlement
Class Counsel").

WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?

On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit
against Yazaki on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of
Instrument Panel Clusters, alleging that Yazaki engaged in a
continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices at supra-competitive levels for Instrument Panel
Clusters sold in the United States. Plaintiff further alleged
that members of the proposed class paid artificially inflated
prices for Instrument Panel Clusters and suffered antitrust
injury to their business or property in violation of the federal
antitrust laws. On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which named Nippon
Seiki and Denso as additional defendants. On February 25, 2015,
Plaintiff filed the Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, naming the Continental Defendants. In 2014, the
Court approved a $5.25 million settlement with Nippon Seiki.
Yazaki denies Plaintiff's allegations, and has agreed to settle
this matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further
litigation. The Court has not issued any findings or rulings with
respect to the merits of Plaintiff's claims or Defendants'
defenses. This is a settlement with Yazaki only. Plaintiff is
continuing to prosecute the case against the remaining non-
settling Defendants.

WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?


Plaintiff, on behalf of the Yazaki Settlement Class, has entered
into a settlement with Yazaki dated December 27, 2016 under which
Yazaki has agreed to pay $7,700,000. The Settlement Agreement
gives Yazaki the right to reduce the amount of the settlement,
but under no circumstances to less than $2,500,000, based on
timely and valid requests for exclusion by members of the Yazaki
Settlement Class.

Yazaki has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiff in the
prosecution of the lawsuit against the non-settling Defendants.
The cooperation provided for under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement includes: (a) providing an attorney proffer of facts
regarding documents, witnesses, meetings, communications,
agreements with competitors, events, background information and
any other relevant, non-privileged topics; and (b) producing
through affidavit(s) or declaration(s) and/or at trial a
representative qualified to authenticate, establish as business
records, or otherwise establish any other necessary foundation
for admission into evidence any of Yazaki's Documents and
transactional data produced or to be produced.

Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement to
ensure a fair and reasonable resolution to this matter, and to
provide benefits to the members of the Yazaki Settlement Class
while recognizing the existence of complex, contested issues of
law and fact; the risks inherent in such complex litigation; the
likelihood that in the absence of settlement, future proceedings
would take several years and be extremely costly; and the
magnitude of the benefits resulting from the settlement in light
of the possible range of recovery that could be obtained through
further litigation, including the risk of no recovery. Settlement
Class Counsel believe that it is in the best interests of the
Yazaki Settlement Class to enter into the proposed settlement and
resolve this litigation as to the Yazaki Defendants only.

This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed
settlement. The Settlement Agreement contains other important
provisions, including the release of certain claims against
Yazaki, and you are referred to the Settlement Agreement, which
is on file with the Clerk of Court and available online at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com, for the complete terms of
the settlement. The proposed settlement must receive final
approval by the Court to become effective.

If you are a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class and the
proposed settlement is approved and becomes effective, you will
be bound by its terms, including the release provisions. If you
wish to object to the settlement, you may do so, but only in
accordance with the procedures set forth below. If you do not
object to the settlement, you do not need to take any action to
indicate your support for, or lack of objection to, the
settlement.


HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO?

If you are a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class as defined
above, you will automatically remain in the Yazaki Settlement
Class unless you elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in
the Yazaki Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action
and your interests will be represented by the Class
Representative and by Settlement Class Counsel. You will have no
responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or expenses.
Any such fees and expenses will be paid solely from amounts
obtained from the Defendants, whether by settlement or judgment,
and must be approved by the Court after notice to you and a
hearing. If you choose, you may also have your own attorney
enter an appearance on your behalf and at your expense.

If you remain in the Yazaki Settlement Class and the final
judgment order dismissing Yazaki from the litigation becomes
final and unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment.

As a member of the Yazaki Settlement Class, you will be eligible
to share in the Yazaki Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims
procedure that will begin at a later date. Settlement Class
Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute the
Yazaki Settlement Fund proceeds. If you remain a member of the
Yazaki Settlement Class, you will receive additional notice at a
later date and you will have an opportunity to object to and be
heard regarding the proposed plan of distribution at that time.

Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of
Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States directly from any
Defendant during the period from January 1, 1998 through December
27, 2016. You may need those documents to complete a claim form
in the future, which will be subject to verification if the
settlement is approved or if damages are otherwise recovered from
Yazaki or another Defendant.

Settlement Class Counsel are not currently seeking payment of
attorneys' fees. In connection with seeking final approval, they
will, however, seek permission from the Court to use up to twenty
percent (20%) of the Yazaki Settlement Fund to pay litigation
expenses, including, but not limited to, costs for experts,
depositions, document reproduction and review, and other costs
incurred in prosecuting the case.

At a later date, Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of additional
litigation expenses, as well as payment of incentive awards to
the Class Representative for its service to the class. You will
be sent notice and be given an opportunity to object and be heard
by the Court when Settlement Class Counsel seek payment of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and
incentive awards from the Yazaki Settlement Fund.


WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN THE YAZAKI SETTLEMENT CLASS?
If you wish to exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class,
you must send a request for exclusion, in writing, via certified
mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than February
5, 2018, to Settlement Class Counsel, and to counsel for Yazaki,
at the addresses set forth in the section of this Notice
immediately following this one, and to the following address:

Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
P.O. Box 5110
Portland, OR 97208-5110

Your request for exclusion must include the full name and address
of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities
and any trade names). You are also requested to identify the
Defendant(s) from which you purchased Instrument Panel Clusters
during the Class Period, the Instrument Panel Clusters purchased,
and the dollar amounts of those purchases. If you validly exclude
yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class you will not be
bound by any decision concerning the Yazaki settlement and you
may pursue individually any claims you may have against Yazaki,
but you will not be eligible to share in the Yazaki Settlement
Fund.


WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND
HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT?

The Court will hold a hearing on March 12, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., at
the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether
the proposed Yazaki settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider at the
hearing whether to approve Settlement Class Counsel's request to
use up to twenty percent (20%) of the Yazaki Settlement
Fund to pay litigation expenses. The hearing may be rescheduled,
adjourned, or continued without further notice to you.

If you do not exclude yourself from the Yazaki Settlement Class
and you wish to object to the settlement or to Settlement Class
Counsel's request to use a portion of the Yazaki Settlement Fund
for litigation expenses, you must do so in writing. Your
objection must include the caption of this litigation, must be
signed, and must be filed no later than February 5, 2018, with
the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United
States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI
48226, and mailed to the following counsel, postmarked no later
than February 5, 2018:

          Steven A. Kanner
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Gregory P. Hansel
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Joseph C. Kohn
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Eugene A. Spector
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Yazaki Settlement C

          John M. Majoras
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939

Counsel for Yazaki

If you do not object to the proposed Yazaki settlement, or the
request to use a portion of the Yazaki Settlement
Fund for litigation expenses, you do not need to appear at the
hearing or take any other action at this time.


WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY
ADDRESS CHANGES?

If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on
the mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your
correct address to: Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110.

The Settlement Agreement, Complaints, and other public documents
filed in this litigation are available for review during normal
business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231
West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system
after registration and payment of a modest fee. Copies of the
Settlement Agreement and certain other documents relevant
to this litigation are available at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. Questions concerning the
proposed Yazaki settlement, this Notice, or the litigation may be
directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified above.
Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: December 13, 2017

BY ORDER OF:
HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division


YBARRA BROS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXANDER AZ and MONICA GUZMAN, Individually and On
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v.
YBARRA BROS., INC and ALBERT and TROY YBARRA, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00001 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 1, 2018), alleges that,
as servers, Plaintiffs were tipped employees, and were paid at an
hourly rate of $2.13 or $4.00, with Defendants taking a tip
credit as allowed under circumstances by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  Under the dictates of the FLSA and Federal Regulations
related thereto, an employer is entitled to take a tip credit and
to "pool" tips if the employer follows the proper legal
requirements. Defendants failed to keep proper records of the
tips received by their employees, improperly applied tips to
employees not entitled to receive tips, and, upon information and
belief, failed to actually pay all of the "pooled" tips to other
employees and instead kept a portion of the withheld tips. The
Plaintiffs assert that, due to their illegal actions, the
Defendants should lose the benefit of the tip credit and be
required to pay the Plaintiffs the difference between the amount
paid and the minimum wage for all hours for which Defendants
actually paid the employees, minimum wage (and minimum-wage rate
overtime pay) for all hours not previously paid, and all tips
withheld from Plaintiffs and Members of the Class. The Defendants
knew of, approved of, and benefited from Plaintiffs' regular and
overtime work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


* Australian Gov't Looks Into Legal Fees Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that with the
growing number of class action proceedings in Australia, the
government is looking at how to prevent litigation costs
associated with lawyers fees from being unfair and
disproportionate.

Commonwealth regulation for third-party litigation funders will
be considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC),
with a report to government expected to be available late this
year.

The ALRC will consider specific matters about class action
funders, including the proportionality of lawyers' costs and the
lack of ethical constraints on their operation such as those
binding legal practitioners.

Attorney-General George Brandis QC said it was time to address
whether the structure, operation and terms on which litigation
funders operated should come under federal regulation.

"With class actions becoming more common in courts across
Australia, the Turnbull government wants to ensure the costs of
such proceedings are appropriate and proportionate and that the
interests of plaintiffs and class members are protected," Senator
Brandis said.

In a statement, the AG noted that third-party funding entities
were not bound to the same professional ethical obligations as
lawyers.  He said this was an issue given the "significant role"
third-party funding entities played in enabling and maintaining
class actions, and where plaintiff groups risked paying big fees.

"There is a significant risk, in such proceedings, that members
of plaintiff groups may be required to pay lawyers' fees which
are exorbitant and unjustifiable," Senator Brandis said.

The ALRC will consult widely with relevant litigation class
action stakeholders, as well as the legal profession and courts.
It will report to government by December 21, 2018. [GN]


* HMRC Urged to Take Action Over Long Unpaid Internships
--------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Khomami and Pamela Duncan, writing for The Guardian, report
that a Conservative peer has called on HMRC to investigate
companies who advertise for long-term unpaid interns and called
for a ban on any placement that lasts more than four weeks.

Chris Holmes, whose private member's bill to limit unpaid
internships recently got its second reading in the Lords, said he
wanted to bring clarity to an area "muddied" by companies and
organisations that take advantage of the current legislation to
exploit young people.

He said a loophole in the law that allows for students to do up
to a year's worth of unpaid work was further incentive for
legislative change.  Mr. Holmes's bill proposes a ban on
placements lasting more than four weeks and the peer has a
question tabled to Lord Henley, the parliamentary under secretary
of state at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy, in the Lords on Dec. 18.

"I'm seeking to push HMRC to do more in terms of investigations,
because so much of this is hidden in plain sight," Mr. Holmes
told the Guardian.  "There are adverts for unpaid internships
that HMRC could follow up.  They could get into dialogue with
that business or employer or organisation."

"I'll be asking Lord Henley whether he believes the current
legislation is satisfactory, and whether they have considered
legislative reform," Mr. Holmes said.

"In the light of lower rates of reporting and the lower rates --
if any -- of actual prosecutions, isn't it clear that the law is
not working? We need further work from HMRC."

HMRC is responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage (NMW)
in the UK.  Employers have to pay their interns the NMW if the
intern is "classed as a worker", which includes taking on tasks
that a paid employee would otherwise do, having a contract or
having been promised a work contract in future.

If there is no contract, an intern is more likely to be
classified as a worker if their placement lasts longer than a few
weeks, and if the business relies on their specific skills.  But
there is an exemption when the intern is a student at an
accredited college or university and will be receiving academic
credit, or if they are only shadowing an employee and not
carrying out any work themselves.

But there is no legal definition of an intern, he added, and
internship agreements can be written in a such a way that a
person understands they really have to be present and perform
certain functions, "but in no way can it be construed as a
contract of service.

"Why would they want to give you a contract? The less
documentation the better from their point of view, because they
can just go 'he or she was just there, just shadowing, watching
how stuff happens here'."

Mr. Holmes said it was an issue of "diversity and inclusion", and
ensuring that everybody has an equal opportunity to do whatever
they choose in life.  Unpaid internships, he added, were
particularly rife in fashion and the media.  "Some very prominent
fashion houses have been rightly called out in the past for this
practice while espousing a particular view of equality," he said.

Mr. Holmes is clearly not alone in his thinking.  The actors and
designers Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen settled a lawsuit by
agreeing to pay $140,000 to 185 interns who were part of a class
action against their parent company, Dualstar Entertainment.  It
was part of a string of unpaid internship lawsuits filed against
some of the world's biggest fashion houses and designers.

In Britain, the fashion house founded by the late designer
Alexander McQueen was sued by a former intern who worked unpaid
for four months.  The action came a year after the fashion house
was forced publicly to apologise about an unpaid internship for a
"talented knitwear student" to work five days a week for up to 11
months without a wage.

But legal action, Mr. Holmes said, is rare.  "You've got two
things going on, businesses that try and actively get around the
legislation, and then lots of predominantly young people drawn
into this world, who feel they have no choice. If somebody sees
this as the only route to get into that particular career, it's
highly unlikely that they would seek to bring a case against an
employer."

Earlier this year, a 22-year-old student at Kent University who
was looking for a new summer internship shared an advert she
found on a job site called Fashion Workie, a "free self service
portal for posting and finding jobs, internships, work
placements, castings" and more.

The ad was for a one-year unpaid placement for Urban Outfitters.
"This is by far the most cheekiest job post I have seen in my
life," the student wrote.

Urban Outfitters said in a statement at the time: "Unpaid
internships are legal under UK law, as long as the intern is a
student at an accredited college or university and will be
receiving academic credit for the internship."

Though that particular ad was eventually taken down, countless
other advertisements for unpaid internships lasting anywhere
between a month and a year are currently on the Fashion Workie
website, as well as other sites including Fashion United and
Fashion Jobs.

The Guardian analysed over 260 UK-based internship advertisements
on the two websites -- Fashion United and Fashion Jobs -- between
December 12 and December 13, 2017.

One in eight posts stated that the position was "unpaid" or
"voluntary" and did not make mention of expenses.  Of these 13
included a line on how long the internship lasted: the minimum
was six weeks but the majority were advertising for internships
of between three to six months.

Further to the unpaid internships, one in five, or 52 positions,
offered some form of expense payment for travel or lunch or both
(noteworthy was the stipulation in many that only London-based
travel expenses were covered, some specifying travel in zones 1
and 2 only).

Just 19 posts -- 7% of the total -- mentioned any level of salary
(although several did not state how much the salary would be) of
which two mentioned "remuneration" and two offered minimum wage
positions.

The remainder of the positions advertised did not state whether
remuneration was offered or not.

A significant minority of the internships (107) were aimed at
students of which 15 explicitly state that the position was
"unpaid" or "voluntary" without listing expenses.  A further 20
student-orientated positions offered some level of expenses. Just
seven mentioned salary or "remuneration".  The majority didn't
state whether the position offered salary or expenses.

Andrew Loader, who founded Fashion Workie in 2009 whilst studying
Fashion Promotion & Imaging at University for the Creative Arts
in Epsom, said all the long-term unpaid ads on his site
specifically ask for students because, "UK law exempts students
undertaking a work placement internship lasting less than one
year as part of their UK-based further or higher education course
from having worker status."

"Fashion Workie supports and welcomes the discussions at
government level concerning the various types of internship and
work experience-based roles, but it's important that any change
has a lasting positive effect."

In a statement to the Guardian, HMRC reiterated the present law.
A spokesman said: "Employing unpaid interns as workers to avoid
paying the National Minimum Wage is against the law and
exploitative.  If interns are workers, they are eligible for at
least the NMW, regardless of how long their placement is.

"HMRC always takes action to ensure workers receive what they are
entitled to. Consequences for not complying with paying NMW can
include fines of 200% of the underpayment, public naming and, for
the worst offences, criminal prosecution."

Adam Watling, careers manager at London College of Fashion, UAL,
said the university had a "a zero tolerance policy on brokering
unpaid opportunities".

Case study: Louise, 21, fashion intern
Louise, 21, was given a three-month internship in the marketing
department of a major international fashion house in London last
summer.  She wasn't paid but was eligible for expenses of up to
GBP5 a day.

She told the Guardian she left the company after a month because
a combination of long days, menial work and an intimidating
office environment became unbearable.

Louise, a fashion student who is undertaking placements as part
of a year working in the industry, applied for the internship via
the Fashion Workie website.

After receiving the job and being told to start a week later, she
arranged to move to London and find suitable accommodation.

"I didn't sign any contracts or anything," she said.  "I was
surprised, because we'd seen the September collection two months
before it was shown at New York fashion week -- really
confidential stuff.  There was no formal procedure."

The marketing department hired two interns at any one time. The
office, she said, was small, made up of the interns and a PR
assistant and a showroom director, who in turn reported to a
number of PR directors.

"On my first day, they gave me a booklet and said everything you
need to know is in here so you don't need to ask questions.  If
you have any questions ask the other intern.

Though the interns completed work for the directors every day,
"they didn't know my name . . . You'd say hi in the morning and
they'd completely ignore you.  They would refer to us as 'intern
1' and 'intern 2'."

"We couldn't speak in the office," Louise said. ".  They would
talk amongst themselves but never include us.  I sneezed a couple
of times one day and the PR assistant asked me to leave."

Louise's work included scanning newspapers for coverage, filling
out forms and spreadsheets, and putting clothes in bags and boxes
and sending them out.

"You got blamed for everything that went wrong. If something was
late, they would tell the directors 'it was the interns'.  If you
tried to stand up for yourself the assistant would shout at you
and say things like 'if you don't want this job you can leave, I
can get someone else to do it'.

"They would also try and pit you against the other intern.  If
the assistant was in a bad mood, she would come in and throw
clothes on the printer or boxes of shoes at your feet and say
'send these out'.  They would even accuse us of stealing stuff.

"We'd have to go for lunch one at a time, and only when the work
was completed.  That meant sometimes I wouldn't get my lunch
until 4pm."

Louise said she didn't understand how anyone was expected to live
and work for nothing in London.  Months after the end of her
internship, she said she still hadn't been paid her expenses.

"The other intern hadn't been paid her expenses for two months.
When she complained, the showroom director said 'to be honest,
you're at the bottom of the pile. At the end of the day you're an
unpaid intern, you're not exactly the priority'.

"Sometimes I'd have to get a director's lunch, which I wouldn't
mind, but when I asked the PR assistant if she was going to pay
me, she would say 'she might or she might not, but you can't say
anything'."

"The worst part is their business wouldn't work without the
interns, because we did every single thing.  But they never gave
us credit -- we would write emails and they would replace our
name with theirs.  That's really disappointing, because to get
the internship you need to have been to university and have
experience."

Louise said a lot of the interns before her had had a similar
experience. "Four interns in a row left after one month.  The
problem was that there wasn't an HR department in London.  We had
no contact for anything."

"I've never worked in an environment where you're made to feel so
irrelevant all the time.  I couldn't sleep.  I'd go and hide in
the toilet for five minutes at a time just so as to not be in the
office.  It made me think I don't want to work in this industry
at all." [GN]


* Klein Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a
fax class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") against various marketing entities and
their respective individual owners was recently dismissed.  In a
ruling based on personal jurisdiction, the Court decided that it
violated the marketers' due process rights to force them to
defend the fax class action in Missouri without having sufficient
contacts with the State.

What were the alleged violations asserted in the fax class action
lawsuit?

The fax class action complaint alleged that the subject faxes
violated the opt-out notice provisions of the TCPA and its
implementing regulations.  While the plaintiff asserted claims
against eleven defendants, only one actually sent the plaintiff
any faxes.  Nevertheless, as claimed by the plaintiff, the other
defendants were allegedly liable for TCPA violations because the
faxes at issue were allegedly sent on their behalf.  The Court
did not opine on this theory of liability, and instead sought
evidence from the plaintiff that the defendants conducted
sufficient business in Missouri to justify litigating the TCPA
fax class action lawsuit in the State.  When the Court determined
that the plaintiff had failed to produce such evidence, the case
was dismissed. [GN]


* Law Enforcement Agencies Recover Only Fraction of Lost Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Depillis, writing for CNNMoney, reports that employers of
some of the country's lowest-paid workers are stealing billions
from their paychecks -- and federal and state law enforcement
agencies have only been able to recover a fraction of those lost
wages.

According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute,
government agencies -- as well as private lawyers -- recovered
almost $2 billion in wages that should have been paid to workers
in 2015 and 2016.

For the last few years, labor advocates have sought to bring more
attention to the issue of "wage theft," which can take many
forms: Requiring workers to stay after their shift officially
ends, failing to pay overtime or taking deductions that reduce
total hourly pay to below the minimum wage.

It's a big problem in low-wage industries like residential
construction and warehousing, but the most visible offenders are
retail and restaurant chains, which have high turnover and often
employ undocumented immigrants who are more vulnerable to
intimidation from an employer should they complain.

In recent years, several progressive cities have passed
ordinances allowing local law enforcement to police wage theft,
and the Department of Labor under the Obama administration hired
more investigators to go after problem employers.

Still, EPI's compilation of state wage theft settlements shows
that some states are much more aggressive than others.

California recovered nearly $117 million for workers between 2015
and 2016 -- more than a third of the total amount recovered by
the 39 states from which EPI received figures.  That was followed
by New York, which won back $84.6 million.

When adjusted for the size of the workforce, Connecticut comes
out in front, recovering $9.66 per capita over those two years.
Compare that with last-ranking Indiana, which only got back 19
cents per worker on average.

Although it's possible that the severity of wage theft varies
across states, the EPI researchers found that the amount
recovered has more to do with the resources devoted to
enforcement and the legal tools available in each state.

California, for example, requires employers to issue each worker
a notice of their rights, including the pay rate and who they can
call if it's not reflected in their paychecks.  The state also
hosts a wealth of labor union-aligned nonprofits with the
capacity to educate workers about the law and how to file
complaints.

In states that don't have strong protections, workers can be very
reluctant to report wage theft, especially if the payoff is small
and the possibility of retaliation -- such as getting demoted or
losing one's job -- is high.  An earlier EPI study based on
government survey data found that workers in the 10 most populous
states alone likely lose about $8 billion a year in underpaid
wages.

Still, state attorneys general accounted for only $317 million
out of the nearly $2 billion recovered for workers in 2015 and
2016.  The rest of the money came from the federal Department of
Labor's $513 million in wage and hour settlements, and $1.2
billion in payouts stemmed from lawsuits, many of them class
actions.

Payouts through litigation, in particular, jumped dramatically
over the past two years.  The value of just the top 10 wage and
hour settlements, as compiled by the law firm Seyfarth Shaw,
tripled between 2014 and 2016, to $695 million.

Part of that total was driven by a few very large settlements in
long-running lawsuits, including $466 million paid in two cases
against FedEx for misclassifying drivers as independent
contractors, and therefore not paying required overtime.  In a
statement, FedEx says it settled the case "to remain focused on
meeting the needs of our customers."

But according to Seyfarth, the high total was also due to the
fact that while recent Supreme Court cases have made it difficult
to mount a class action lawsuit in cases of employment
discrimination, circuit courts of appeal -- especially those in
New York and on the West Coast -- have continued to welcome the
multi-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuits that are more lucrative
for lawyers.

"Prosecution of wage and hour lawsuits is a relatively low cost
investment, without significant barriers to entry, and with the
prospect of immediate returns as compared to other types of
workplace class action litigation," Seyfarth's report reads.

However, that may soon change. In October, the Supreme Court
heard National Labor Relations Board vs. Murphy Oil USA, which
could uphold employers' right to bar their workers from mounting
class action lawsuits, forcing them instead into individual
arbitration.

Celine McNicholas, co-author of EPI's report, says that would
make it even more difficult for workers to address underpayment
of wages at a time when government enforcement isn't up to the
task.

"There is rampant wage theft out there, and you're seeing the
private bar respond to that," Ms. McNicholas says.  "If you take
away the class mechanism, that private enforcement will be taken
away from workers as well." [GN]


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sedgwick Withdraws as Atty for GE in "Johnson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington has entered an order granting Chris S.
Marks, Esq., Erin P. Fraser, Esq., and Sedgwick LLP leave to
withdraw as counsel for General Electric Company, CBS Corporation
and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation in the case styled Thomas
A. Johnson and Barbara C. Johnson, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs,
v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps; et al., Defendants, No.
2:17-cv-00834-TSZ (W.D. Wash.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 4, 2018, is available
at https://is.gd/gvZuR5 from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Johnson & Barbara C. Johnson, Husband and Wife,
Plaintiffs, represented by:

            Kristin M. Houser, Esq.
            Lucas W.H. Garrett, Esq.
            Thomas J. Breen, Esq.
            Elizabeth Jean McLafferty, Esq.
            SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
            810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
            Seattle, Washington 98104
            Phone: (206) 622-8000
            Email: houser@sgb-law.com
                   garrett@sgb-law.com
                   breen@sgb-law.com
                   mclafferty@sgb-law.com

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor-
in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by:

            Alice Coles Serko, Esq.
            Barry Neal Mesher, Esq.
            SEDGWICK LLP
            Phone: 816.423.227
            Email: bnm@bnmesherlaw.com

Asbestos Corp Ltd, Defendant, represented by:

            Kevin J. Craig, Esq.
            Mark B. Tuvim, Esq.
            GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
            701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
            Seattle, WA 98104
            Phone: (206) 695-5100
            Fax: (206) 689-2822
            Email: kcraig@grsm.com
                   mtuvim@grsm.com

CBS Corporation, successor by merger to CBS Corporation, formerly
known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation formerly known as
Viacom Inc, Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation & General Electric
Company, Defendants, represented by:

            Erin P. Fraser, Esq.
            Christopher S. Marks, Esq.
            TANENBAUM KEALE LLP
            601 Union Street
            Two Union Square, Suite 4253
            Seattle, WA 98101
            Email: efraser@tktrial.com
                   cmarks@tktrial.com

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by:

            Ryan J. Groshong, Esq.
            G. William Shaw, Esq.
            K&L GATES LLP
            925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
            Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
            Voice: 206.370.7667
            Fax: 206.623.7022
            Email: ryan.groshong@klgates.com
                   bill.shaw@klgates.com

Goulds Pumps LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant,
represented by:

            Ronald C. Gardner, Esq.
            GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC
            2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 600
            Seattle, Washington 98121
            Phone: (206) 256-6309
            Fax: (206) 256-6318
            Email: rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com

IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest
to IMO Delaval successor in interest IMO DeLaval, Defendant,
represented by:

            Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq.
            James Edward Horne, Esq.
            GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
            One Union Square
            600 University St, #2100
            Seattle, WA 98101
            Telephone: 206.676.7500
            Fax: 206.676.7575
            Email: mricketts@gth-law.com
                   jhorne@gth-law.com

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by:

            Richard G. Gawlowski, Esq.
            WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON
            901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
            Seattle, Washington 98164-2050
            Phone: 206-623-4100
            Fax: 206-623-9273
            Email: info@wscd.com

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by:

            Chris Robert Youtz, Esq.
            SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
            Columbia Tower
            701 5th Ave., Suite 2560
            Seattle, WA 98104
            Tel: 206.223.0303
            Fax: 206.223.0246
            Email: info@sylaw.com

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by:

            Shaun Mary Morgan, Esq.
            Allen Eraut, Esq.
            RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC
            1300 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 330
            Portland, OR 97201
            Phone: (503) 229-1819
            Email: smorgan@rizzopc.com
                   aeraut@rizzopc.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. AO
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs-Appellants Essie
Lemieux, Raymond J. Lemieux, Jr., and Dehon Lemieux Callier's
claims against Defendant-Appellee American Optical Corporation.

Plaintiffs are the widow and surviving children of Raymond J.
Lemieux, Sr. From 1956 to 1970, Raymond Sr. worked for the Johns-
Manville Corporation in Marrero, Louisiana. During his
employment, Raymond Sr. wore a respirator designed by American
Optical and was exposed to asbestos. As a result of this
exposure, Raymond Sr. developed asbestos-related lung cancer,
which eventually caused his death in 2015.

Prior to his death, Raymond Sr. filed suit against American
Optical stemming from his use of American Optical's respirator.
Represented by his attorney, Raymond Sr. entered into settlement
negotiations with American Optical. The Plaintiffs were unaware
of these discussions, but as a condition of Raymond Sr.'s
settlement with American Optical, they were eventually asked to
sign a release of any potential future claims they might have. A
settlement agreement containing the release of these claims was
executed by Raymond Sr., Plaintiffs, and American Optical on
February 10, 2011.

Nearly one year after Raymond Sr.'s death and over five years
after executing the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs filed
suit against American Optical in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Plaintiffs alleged
that the respirator used by Raymond Sr. was: (1) defectively
designed and manufactured, and (2) deceptively marketed and sold
in violation of Louisiana and federal law. In bringing their
claims, the Plaintiffs raised the unenforceability of the
Settlement Agreement asserting that it was null and void under
Louisiana law and sought a declaration holding as much.

American Optical filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims on the basis that (1) the Settlement Agreement
plainly barred the claims, (2) the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Settlement Agreement is relatively null was time-barred because
more than five years have passed since it was executed, and (3)
even if the Plaintiffs could challenge the Settlement Agreement,
the Plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to
set forth any plausible claim of relative nullity.

The district court agreed and granted American Optical's motion.
The district court held that the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Settlement Agreement is relatively null is barred by Louisiana's
five-year prescription period for such claims. Even if the claim
was not barred, the court alternatively held that Plaintiffs'
consent to the Settlement Agreement was not vitiated by error,
fraud, or duress. Thus, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs'
claims against American Optical with prejudice.

All three bases on which Plaintiffs assert nullity relate to the
circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs' execution of the Settlement
Agreement. Even accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, these
bases were readily apparent or reasonably ascertainable at the
time the agreement was signed or in the five years that followed.

The Fifth Circuit points out that with reasonable diligence, the
Plaintiffs could have recognized their misunderstanding of the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, consulted an independent
attorney, or questioned Raymond Sr.'s attorney or American
Optical about the terms of their release. Thus, as the district
court correctly noted, Plaintiffs' failure to discover the bases
for their nullity claim can only be attributable to their own
willfulness or neglect.

While Plaintiffs seek to reset the prescriptive clock to the date
of Raymond Sr.'s death, Plaintiffs fail to assert how, if at all,
Raymond Sr.'s death changed Plaintiffs' understanding of the
Settlement Agreement or their ability to assert a nullity cause
of action within the five-year prescriptive period. In fact, it
is difficult to see the relevance of Raymond Sr.'s death to
Plaintiffs' alleged discovery of their nullity cause of action at
all.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit determines that the prescriptive
period commenced on the date Plaintiffs entered into the
agreement because the bases upon which Plaintiffs' nullity claim
is based were readily discoverable at the time Plaintiffs
executed the Settlement Agreement. By November 11, 2016, when
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking to nullify the Settlement
Agreement, the five-year prescriptive period had run. Therefore,
the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' suit as time
barred under Louisiana law.

The appealed case is Essie Lemieux, widow of Raymond J. Lemieux,
Sr.; Raymond J. Lemieux, Jr., surviving child of Raymond J.
Lemieux, Sr.; Dehon Lemieux Callier, surviving child of Raymond
J. Lemieux, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Optical
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-30346, (5th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Per Curiam dated January 4, 2018, is
available at https://is.gd/xZRge4 from Leagle.com.

Counsels for Plaintiff-Appellant:

            Meyer H. Gertler, Esq.
            Louis L. Gertler, Esq.
            The Gertler Law Firm
            935 Gravier Street, Suite 1900
            New Orleans, LA 70112
            Local Phone: (504) 581-6411
            Toll Free: (877) 581-6411
            E-mail: mhgertler@gertlerfirm.com
                    lgertler@gertlerfirm.com

Counsels for Defendant-Appellee:

            Thomas R. Blum, Esq.
            Douglas Watson Redfearn, Esq.
            Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP
            1100 Poydras Street, 30th Floor
            New Orleans, LA  70163
            Direct: (504) 569-2916
            Fax: (504) 569-2999
            Email: thomasb@spsr-law.com
                   douglasr@spsr-law.com

            -- and --

            Sara L.  Ochs, Esq.
            Akerman LLP
            601 Poydras Street, Suite 2200
            New Orleans, LA 70130
            Tel.: 504 586 1241
            Fax: 504 584 9142
            Email: sara.ochs@akerman.com

            -- and --

            Chad M. Eggspuehler, Esq.
            Tucker Ellis LLP
            950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
            Cleveland, OH
            Direct: 216.696.5919
            Fax: 216.592.5009
            Email: chad.eggspuehler@tuckerellis.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay "Lineberger" Proceedings Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis L. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina dismisses the Consent Motion to Stay
Proceedings because the Plaintiffs' counsel has not shown that
consultation with the Defendants has occurred in the case styled
Tommy William Lineberger, and Marcella Wilson Lineberger,
Plaintiffs, v. CBS Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16
cv 390, (W.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiffs' counsel, however, is directed to refile the
motion -- stating if the parties have conferred and stating
opposing counsel's position(s). Contemporaneously and separately
from the motion, Plaintiffs' counsel is also required to file a
brief.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 3, 2018, is available
at https://is.gd/b66CZr from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, and spouse & Marcella Wilson
Lineberger, Plaintiffs, represented by:

             Sabrina G. Stone, Esq.
             Dean Omar Branham, LLP
             302 N Market Street, Suite 300
             Dallas, Texas 75202
             Phone: (214) 722-5990
             Email: sstone@dobllp.com

             -- and --

             William M. Graham, Esq.
             The Law Offices of Wallace & Graham
             525 North Main Street
             Salisbury, North Carolina
             Phone: 704-754-8242
             Fax: 704-633-9434

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor-by-merger
to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and
also as successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant & Gould
Electronics, Inc., successor-in-interest to other ITE Circuit
Breaker Co., Defendants, represented by:

             Jennifer M. Techman, Esq.
             Evert Weathersby Houff
             3455 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1550
             Atlanta, GA 30326
             Direct: 678.651.1238
             Phone: 678.651.1200
             Fax: 678.651.1201
             Email: jmtechman@ewhlaw.com

CNA Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Celanese Corporation
formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation & Graybar Electric
Co, Defendants, represented by:

             Stephen B. Williamson, Esq.
             Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.
             422 S Main St
             Hendersonville, NC 28792-5304
             Phone: (828) 697-6196
             Fax: (828) 693-3999

Cooper Industries, LLC, successor-in-interest to Cooper
Industries, Inc. (successor-in-interest to Crouse-Hinds Company),
Defendant, represented by:

             William P. Early, Esq.
             Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Durez Corporation & Occidental Chemical Corporation, formerly
known as Hookers Chemical Co. as successor to Durez Corporation,
Defendants, represented by:

             John S. Slosson, Esq.
             Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq.
             William M. Starr, Esq.
             Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
             One Wells Fargo Center
             301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
             Charlotte, NC 28202
             Telephone: 704.417.3000
             Facsimile: 704.377.4814
             Email: jack.slosson@nelsonmullins.com
                    tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com
                    bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

             Laura Erb Dean, Esq.
             Richard T. Boyette, Esq.
             Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P.

General Cable Industries, Inc., successor-in-interest to other
Carol Cable Co., Defendant, represented by:

             Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq.
             Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
             2 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100
             Greenville SC 29601
             Telephone: (864) 751-7600
             Facsimile: (864) 751-7800
             Email: stephanie.flynn@smithmoorelaw.com

             -- and --

             Timothy Peck, Esq.
             Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
             300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400
             Greensboro NC 27401
             Telephone: (336) 378-5200
             Facsimile: (336) 378-5400
             Email: tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com

Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

             Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq.
             Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC
             3203 Brassfield Road
             Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
             Phone: (336) 282-8848
             Fax: (336) 282-8409
             Email: kkyre@pckb-law.com

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by:

             Mark Andrew Leach, Esq.
             Orbock Ruark & Dillard, PC
             1590 Westbrook Plaza Dr., Suite 102
             Winston-Salem, NC 27103
             Tel: 336-760-8848
             Fax: 336-760-5903

             -- and --

             Mary Clift Abdalla, Esq.
             Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP
             210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200
             Jackson, Mississippi 39201-2375
             Direct: 601-960-8600
             Fax: 601-960-8613
             Email: mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by:

             Keith E. Coltrain, Esq.
             Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA
             1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 423
             Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
             Telephone: (919) 865-9500
             Facsimile: (919) 865-9501
             Email: Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

             Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq.
             William M. Starr, Esq.
             Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
             One Wells Fargo Center
             301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
             Charlotte, NC 28202
             Telephone: 704.417.3000
             Facsimile: 704.377.4814
             Email: tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com
                    bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com

Plastics Engineering Company, doing business as PLENCO,
Defendant, represented by:

             Amy C. Drayton, Esq.
             Dean and Gibson, Attorneys at Law, PLLC
             301 S McDowell St # 900
             Charlotte, NC 28204
             Phone: 704-372-2700
             Email: adrayton@deanandgibson.com

Rockwell Automation, Inc., successor-in-interest to other Allen-
Bradley formerly known as Rockwell International Corp.,
Defendant, represented by:

             Sarena Monique Holder, Esq.
             Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
             950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
             Cleveland, OH 44113
             Phone: 216.696.5696
             Email: sarena.holder@tuckerellis.com


             -- and --

             Timothy Peck, Esq.
             Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
             300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400
             Greensboro NC 27401
             Telephone: (336) 378-5200
             Facsimile: (336) 378-5400
             Email: tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com

RSCC Wire & Cable, LLC, Defendant, represented by:

             Elizabeth D. Scott, Esq.
             Elizabeth C. Stone, Esq.
             Lynn Kanaga Brugh, IV, Esq.
             Williams Mullen
             301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700
             Raleigh, NC 27601
             Telephone: 919.981.4000
             Fax: 919.981.4300
             Email: escott@williamsmullen.com
                    ecstone@williamsmullen.com

             -- and --

             Lynn Kanaga Brugh, IV, Esq.
             Williams Mullen, pro hac vice
             Williams Mullen Center
             200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600
             Richmond, VA 23219
             Telephone: 804.420.6000
             Fax: 804.420.6507
             Email: lbrugh@williamsmullen.com

             -- and --

             Sarena Monique Holder, Esq.
             Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
             950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
             Cleveland, OH 44113
             Phone: 216.696.5696
             Email: sarena.holder@tuckerellis.com

Schnieder Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company,
Defendant, represented by:

             Janice Holmes, Esq.
             Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A.
             Phone: 803-724-1821
             Fax: 803-779-1767
             Email: jholmes@gwblawfirm.com

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by:

             Kelly B. Jones, Esq.
             Womble Bond Dickinson
             Phone: 919.755.2151
             Email: kelly.jones@wbd-us.com

Tarkett, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

            John T. Holden, Esq.
            Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C.
            2115 Rexford Road, Suite 210
            Charlotte, NC 28211-5453
            Telephone: 800-634-8441
            Facsimile: 888-811-7144
            Email: jholden@dmclaw.com

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

            Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq.
            Scott E. Frick, Esq.
            W. David Conner, Esq.
            Christopher Barton Major, Esq.
            Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.
            1 North Main Street, 2nd Floor
            Greenville, SC 29601-2772
            P.O. Box 2048 (29602-2048)
            Telephone: 864.240.3200
            Facsimile: 864.240.3300
            Email: mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com
                   sfrick@hsblawfirm.com
                   dconner@hsblawfirm.com
                   cmajor@hsblawfirm.com

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Individual & successor-in-interest to
other International Talc Co. formerly known as RT Vanderbilt
Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

            David L. Levy, Esq.
            Gerald Anderson Stein, II, Esq.
            Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP
            6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1000
            Charlotte, NC 28210
            Phone: (704) 366-1101
            Email: dlevy@hedrickgardner.com
                   astein@hedrickgardner.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dr. Burgher Can't be Admitted as Expert Witness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denies The Budd Company, Inc., leave to add Louis
Burgher, M.D., as expert witness and to reopen Discovery in the
case titled Nancy Little, individually and as personal
representative of the Estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, v. The
Budd Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 16-4170-DDC-KGG, (D.
Kan.).

Plaintiff, who is the daughter of decedent Robert Rabe, filed
this action in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas,
alleging wrongful death and personal injuries allegedly resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Budd Company
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas in November 2016.

The Scheduling Order currently in effect includes an expert
disclosure deadline of September 30, 2017, and a discovery
deadline of December 29, 2017. The Defendant served the expert
report of Dr. Earl Gregory on September 25, 2017.

The Defendant filed its Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness
and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose on November 15,
2017, contending that "in the course of developing its case and
preparing for trial, [it] has come to the conclusion that this
action will be furthered by retention of an expert, Louis
Burgher, M.D. to discuss the medical state of the art applicable
to this asbestos personal injury action."

The question before the Court is whether the Defendant could have
met the expert deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order with
due diligence.

The Court warns that the deadlines set forth in its Scheduling
Orders are not merely aspirational. Rather, the orderly, timely
and efficient management of litigation by the Court and counsel
is important to the administration of justice. The Court
maintains that tardy substantive changes to the Scheduling Order
can be unfair, and can cause substantial delay and expense. Thus,
actions beyond those deadlines are only allowed for good cause.

The Court finds that there is no attempt to establish that the
Defendant could not have met the deadline with due diligence. The
argument the Defendant advances in favor of its motion does
nothing to assist the Court's analysis of good cause or due
diligence. The Court clarifies that "late realization that a
party would benefit from another expert is not good cause" and
"the lack of prejudice to the non-movant does not show good
cause."

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 3,
2018, is available at https://is.gd/TtQVVY from Leagle.com.

Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the
estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, represented by:

             E. Todd Hottman, Esq.
             Hottman Law Firm
             130 N Cherry St, Suite 203
             Olathe, KS 66061-3460
             Phone: (913) 262-4444

             -- and --

             John D. Roven, Esq.
             Roven-Kaplan, LLP
             2190 N Loop W Fwy
             Houston, TX 77018
             Telephone: (713) 465-8522
             Fax: (713) 465-3658
             E-mail: info@rovenlaw.com

             -- and --

             Kevin M. Camp, Esq.
             Jones Granger, pro hac vice
             10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 888
             P.O. Box 4340
             Houston, TX 77210
             Phone: 713.668.0230
             Fax: 713.956.7139
             Email: kcam@jonesgranger.com

The Budd Company, Defendant, represented by:

             James E. Wynne, Esq.
             Joseph E. Richotte, Esq.
             Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice
             41000 Woodward Ave.
             Stoneridge West Bldg.
             Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
             Email: wynne@butzel.com
                    richotte@butzel.com

             -- and --

             Vincent Edward Gunter, Esq.
             Rasmussen Dickey Moore, LLC
             1001 E. 101st Terrace, Suite 300
             Kansas City, MO 64131
             Phone: 816-360-1727
             Email: vgunter@rdm.law


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transportation Ins. Summary Ruling Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Mike McGrath of the Supreme Court of Montana affirms the
Workers' Compensation Court's decision granting summary judgment
to Transportation Insurance.

The appealed case Christita Moreau, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Edwin Moreau, Petitioner and
Appellant, v. Transportation Insurance Company, Respondent and
Appellee, No. DA 17-0320, (Mont.) raised this issue: "Did the
Workers' Compensation Court properly deny Moreau's motion for
summary judgment and grant Transportation Insurance Company's
motion for summary judgment?"

Edwin Moreau contracted a fatal asbestos-related occupational
disease that arose from his employment with W.R. Grace. In 2001
W.R. Grace created the Libby Medical Plan (LMP) to assist
residents of Libby, Montana, in paying for medical costs arising
from asbestos exposure from vermiculite mining. The LMP medical
payments were made with "no strings attached" and LMP did not
demand or expect any reimbursement from any source. W.R. Grace's
establishment of the LMP was "voluntary with no conditions" and
W.R. Grace disclaimed any intention to seek reimbursement for any
payments made by the LMP.

LMP paid $95,846 of Edwin's medical bills because they were
"reasonable and necessary medical care related to Edwin's
occupational disease." Transportation Insurance Company, as W.R.
Grace's workers' compensation insurer, paid Edwin's out-of-pocket
medical expenses and also reimbursed Medicaid and other insurers
that had paid portions of the expenses.

In 2012, Moreau petitioned the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC)
for a determination of Transportation Insurance's liability for
Edwin's medical expenses arising out of his occupational disease.
Christita Moreau's petition to the WCC demanded that
Transportation Insurance pay her the $95,846 that had been paid
by the LMP.

Moreau's attorneys also represented the LMP Trust "for purposes
of recovering the disputed $95,846" for the LMP Trust. At the
time of the WCC order, the LMP Trust was not a party to this
action and had not advanced a claim in the WCC for reimbursement
of the amount paid by its predecessor LMP.

The WCC concluded that Transportation Insurance's obligation to
the Estate of Edwin Moreau for medical expense payments was
governed by Section 39-71-704, MCA, which requires an insurer to
"furnish reasonable medical services" to an injured worker. The
WCC determined that paying an injured worker for medical expenses
that were already paid by an entity not seeking reimbursement "is
not furnishing medical services"

The Court finds that in the WCC proceedings, Moreau moved to add
LMP Trust as a party but subsequently withdrew her motion. While
the LMP Trust purportedly stated that it sought reimbursement for
the amounts that its predecessor LMP paid on Edwin's behalf,
there is no evidence that it took any steps to pursue that claim.
There is no evidence that LMP Trust sought to enforce its
purported claim through joinder or intervention in the present
action or by a separate action. A matter can be decided in the
courts only when there is a justiciable controversy.

Moreau further argues that Edwin's Estate should receive the
payment of approximately $95,000 from Transportation Insurance
because he has not been made whole for all of the losses and
damages caused by his occupational disease. She argues that until
the Estate is made whole (fully compensated) for those losses,
Transportation Insurance must pay to the Estate the disputed
$95,000.

The Court explains that the made-whole concept in the context of
workers' compensation does not apply to the recovery of workers'
compensation benefits by the injured worker or his estate.
However, the made whole concept can be applicable when an injured
worker recovers damages from a third-party tortfeasor on a tort
claim for personal injury, outside of the workers' compensation
system. In that situation, the workers' compensation insurer that
has paid benefits to the injured worker arising out of the same
incident may not subrogate against the tort damages recovered by
the worker until the worker has been made whole as to his tort
claim.

The Court finds that the Moreau's case is not one of those
subrogation cases since there has been no third-party tort
recovery. Transportation Insurance is not seeking to recover any
money from Edwin's Estate. The Court concludes that Edwin and his
Estate were entitled only to the medical benefits provided by the
workers' compensation statutes and there is no dispute that those
benefits were already provided. As the WCC concluded, the Court
affirms that Edwin was not entitled to recover the value of the
medical benefits in addition to the medical services themselves.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 2, 2018, is
available at https://is.gd/7PTH77 from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellant:

             Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
             Ethan Welder, Esq.
             McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey, PC
             345 1st Ave E, Kalispell
             Kalispell, Montana 59901
             Phone: (406) 752-5566

             -- and --

             Laurie Wallace, Esq.
             Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C.
             Columbia Falls, Montana
             P.O. Box 2020
             5 Hwy 2
             Columbia Falls, MT 59912
             Phone: (406) 892-2193
             Email: info@Bothe-Lauridsen.com

Counsel for Appellee:

             Todd A. Hammer, Esq.
             Hammer, Quinn and Shaw, PLLC
             00 Financial Dr, Ste 100
             Kalispell, Montana 59901
             Phone: (406) 755-2225
             Email: toddhammer@attorneysmontana.com

Amicus Curiae W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn represented by:

             Bradley J. Luck, Esq.
             Jeffrey B. Smith, Esq.
             Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP
             350 Ryman Street
             Missoula, MT 59802
             Phone: 406-523-2500
             Fax: 406-523-2595


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at Sep.30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that it or its subsidiaries have
been named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required
by Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has
valid defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend
them vigorously.  Given the state of these claims, it is not
possible to determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ykrw3R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7MM Cleanup Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that together with its
Investments in real estate partnerships, it had accrued
liabilities of US$9.7 million for their pro-rata share of
environmental remediation, which includes the existence of
asbestos in older shopping centers.

The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental
laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers
pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the
existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground
petroleum storage tanks.  We believe that the tenants who
currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in
accordance with current laws and regulations.  Generally, we use
all legal means to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants
from our shopping centers or convert them to more environmentally
friendly systems.  Where available, we have applied and been
accepted into state-sponsored environmental programs.  We have a
blanket environmental insurance policy for third-party
liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers that
currently have no known environmental contamination.  We have
also placed environmental insurance, where possible, on specific
properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate our
environmental risk.  We monitor the shopping centers containing
environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediate
the sites.  We also have legal obligations to remediate certain
sites and we are in the process of doing so.

"As of September 30, 2017, we and our Investments in real estate
partnerships had accrued liabilities of US$9.7 million for our
pro-rata share of environmental remediation.  We believe that the
ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters
will not have a material effect on our financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations; however, we can give no
assurance that existing environmental studies on our shopping
centers have revealed all potential environmental contaminants
and liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did
not create any material environmental condition not known to us;
that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers
will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition
of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that
changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their
interpretation will not result in additional environmental
liability to us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xg6AqD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metaldyne Defends Grede's EPA Case
---------------------------------------------------
Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. is defending in a case related
to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding its Wisconsin facility,
according to American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc.'s Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 11, 2017.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of MPG, Grede Wisconsin
Subsidiaries LLC (Grede Wisconsin), had been under investigation
by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental
Protection Agency for alleged Clean Air Act violations and
alleged obstruction of justice relating to the January 2012
removal of debris from the roof of a heat treat oven that was
purported to contain asbestos at a now closed Grede facility in
Berlin, Wisconsin.  The United States Attorney, Eastern District
of Wisconsin, indicted Grede LLC and Grede II LLC, the parent
company of Grede Wisconsin, in connection with this matter.  We
are defending this matter."

A copy of the Form 8-K and its attachments are available at
https://is.gd/iCMlAP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had US$13.6-Mil. Loss at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has US$13.6 million
losses and loss adjustment expenses for asbestos exposure,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended September 30, 2017 was the result of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years
driven by US$13.6 million for our asbestos exposure due to
increasing defense costs and increase in the time claims remain
open and US$3.0 million in the other run-off lines, partially
offset by net favorable loss reserve development on prior
accident years of US$4.6 million for the run-off risk management
lines.  Loss and loss adjustment expenses for the three months
ended September 30, 2016 included net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years of US$5.7 million for our
asbestos exposure due to greater than expected defense costs on
our primary exposures, US$3.7 million development in our risk
management lines and US$2.0 million in our other run-off lines.

"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2017 was the result of net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years driven by US$13.6 million for
our asbestos exposure due to increasing defense costs and
increase in the time claims remain open and US$5.2 million in
other run-off lines, partially offset by net favorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years of US$2.7 million for
the run-off risk management lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bD12qC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 55 pending asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Liquidating Trust ("BNS
Sub") has been named as a defendant in approximately 1,371
alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of September 30,
2017.  The claims were filed over a period beginning in 1994
through September 30, 2017.  In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims filed, approximately
1,316 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and
closed as of September 30, 2017.  Of the claims settled, the
average settlement was less than US$3,000.  There remained 55
pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2017.  There can be
no assurance that the number of future claims and the related
costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent
with the experience to date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of US$183,000,000, with US$1,543,000 at both
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 in estimated remaining
self-insurance retention (deductible).  There is secondary
evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973, although there is no
assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was
in place.  Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989
contained exclusions related to asbestos.  Under certain
circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened.  Also,
there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by
BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or
the filing of a new claim.  BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits.
None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised.  As of both September 30, 2017
and December 31, 2016, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating
to the open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This accrual
represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to
defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the
amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded,
through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and
the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims and
that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,500 PI Cases at Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company is defending 11,500 asbestos-
related cases 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 states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July
1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.  A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products containing asbestos.  A limited number of the cases
allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were
exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property.  Each case
typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the
Company.  The complaints generally seek monetary damages for
personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure
to products containing asbestos.  The Company's involvement in
asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or
produce asbestos.  Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a
large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated
and have been dismissed by the courts.  The Company has not
suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related
to asbestos claims and intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in these matters.  When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial.  As of September 29, 2017, there
were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending against
the Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that
were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries,
which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven
years.  The Company believes that it has adequate amounts
recorded related to these matters.  While it is not possible at
this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of
these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given
the information currently available, that the ultimate
resolutions of all known and anticipated future claims, after
taking into account amounts already accrued, along with
recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2ploq5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sep. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. still defends itself against lawsuits
related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos-related claims and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of the Company.

"The Company is also involved in various legal actions arising
out of the normal course of business, which, taking into account
the liabilities accrued and legal counsel's evaluation of such
actions, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution,
individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

"It is reasonably possible that the estimates for warranty costs,
product liability, environmental remediation, asbestos-related
claims and other various legal matters may change based upon new
information that may arise or matters that are beyond the scope
of the Company's historical experience.  Presently, there are no
reliable methods to estimate the amount of any such potential
changes."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xr99KI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 89
cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 89
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 143 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.  To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts
at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one
count at US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive
damages; one count at US$1.0 million.  In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of
action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fourth
cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our
subsidiaries.  We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos
cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being
dismissed from such cases.  However, it is not possible to
predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although our
results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.  Among
the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion
were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these
types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have
been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in
many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any
causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in
many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that
they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at
all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact
result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints
assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the
damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any
of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation
to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Pulls Out Children Makeup Over Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Eyewitness News reported that retailer Claire's is recalling
certain brands of children's makeup due to cancer-causing
substances.

The company has pulled 17 products from shelves over asbestos
concerns.

The issue came up thanks to a Rhode Island woman who was worried
about the ingredients in her 6-year-old daughter's glitter makeup
kit.

Kristi Warner mailed the makeup to an independent lab in North
Carolina.

Test results revealed tremolite asbestos. Exposure to asbestos
has been linked to mesothelioma, which is fatal.

"I physically sank," Warner said. "I ended up sitting on the
ground, just trying to wrap my head around how something like
that could end up in our home."

Claire's pulled the makeup and released a statement, saying
they'll be conducting an immediate investigation into the alleged
issues.

In July, Justice, another children's store, also pulled makeup
off of their shelves over asbestos concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower Wins Improper Removal Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that a jury awarded
approximately $174,00 to a whistleblower who was fired for
reporting improper asbestos removal practices at asbestos
abatement and demolition company Champagne Demolition, LLC.  OSHA
brought suit on his behalf under Section 11(c) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the jury awarded $103,000
in back wages, $20,000 in compensatory, and $50,000 in punitive
damages.

According to the complaint, the company fired the whistleblower
one day after he raised concerns about improper asbestos removal
at a high school in Alexandria Bay, NY, and entered the worksite
when it was closed to take pictures of the asbestos. The
whistleblower also removed a bag containing the improperly
removed asbestos.  A few weeks after Champagne Demolition
terminated the whistleblowers' employment, they sued him for
defamation.  Champagne Demolition subsequently stipulated to the
dismissal of the defamation claim.  OSHA alleged that both the
termination of the whistleblower's employment and the filing of a
defamation action were retaliatory acts prohibited by Section
11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Although for procedural reasons the court did not rule on whether
the filing of the defamation action against the whistleblower was
retaliatory, the Secretary's motion for summary judgment   stakes
out an important position on retaliatory lawsuits against
whistleblowers:

Lawsuits filed with the intent to punish or dissuade employees
from exercising their statutory rights are a well- established
form of adverse action. See BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S.
516, 531 (2002) (Finding that a lawsuit that was both objectively
baseless and subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose could
violate the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition on
retaliation); Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F. Supp.
2d 447, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Courts have held that baseless
claims or lawsuits designed to deter claimants from seeking legal
redress constitute impermissibly adverse retaliatory actions.");
Spencer v. Int'l Shoppes, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 2d 287, 299
(E.D.N.Y. 2012) (Under Title VII, the filing of a lawsuit with a
retaliatory motive constitutes adverse action).

OSHA should be commended for taking the case to trial and
obtaining punitive damages.  As approximately 4,379 workers in
the U.S. are killed annually due to unsafe workplaces, it is
critical for OSHA to vigorously enforce Section 11(c) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and counter retaliatory
lawsuits against whistleblowers, an especially pernicious form of
retaliation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tea Ban Lifted After Allowing Russian Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
EconomyNext reported that Russia will lift a ban on Ceylon Tea
from December 30 imposed after claims of finding a beetle,
officials said, after Sri Lanka lifted a ban on asbestos that was
to have been taken effect from 2018.

Plantations Minister Navin Dissanayake was quoted as saying by
Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror newspaper that Russian authorities had
wanted stricter phytosanitary measures imposed on Sri Lanka
exports.
Russia banned tea from Ceylon from December 18, after the state
agricultural protection agency Rosselkhoznadzor claimed that a
'Khapra beetle was found in a shipment of tea.

The tea ban was widely viewed as retaliation for an asbestos ban
by Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka's cabinet of ministers reversed the ban.

Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena had earlier banned
imports of asbestos ostensibly on health grounds. Asbestos is
believed to be a carcinogen for workers who may inhale dust.
But the Sri Lanka Ceramics and Glass Council, a powerful
protectionist lobby which had used political influence
artificially make tiles and sanitaryware more expensive for Sri
Lankans trying to build a house, had claimed credit for
influencing the President.

The Ceramics and Glass Council had wanted asbestos pushed out of
the market to force the people of Sri Lanka to use clay tiles in
a nationalist move.

However the move backfired because Russia, itself an
authoritarian-nationalist nation state headed by Vladimir Putin.

Sri Lanka also has to get back to evidence-based policy making to
avoid ad hoc decisions that lead to trade wars, analysts say.

While it may be acceptable to grant freedoms to people overnight,
when restrictions are brought wide consultation, careful
consideration and time is needed to prevent ad hoc decision-
making and push back.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post Office Abandoned After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------
Collin Anderson of Record News reported that the Panaca town
board held its regular meeting. Since there was no public comment
for the board to hear, the meeting moved on to the usual approval
of agendas and the payment of bills. There was a notably empty
seat among the board, indicative of the empty board member
position that has yet to be filled, and since no one has applied,
the board decided to hold off on that discussion until an
applicant could be found.

The big subject of the night was the possibility of finding a new
home for the post office. The idea had been kicked around in
previous meetings that the current post office/town board meeting
area/storage could be shuffled around a bit to give the postal
workers more room to work with. This would come with the added
bonus of giving the people of Panaca more room for boxes. The
downside of this option lies in the fact that a recent study of
the building found asbestos in the walls, which would require a
lot of work to remove before anyone could remove walls or cut
doors to better accommodate the new post office area.

Another idea that's gaining traction is the possibility of
building a whole new post office somewhere in town. This would
give the postal workers a more updated building; it wouldn't
require cutting into walls containing asbestos; and there would
be less environmental hazards overall. The issues facing this
proposal are that finding land at an affordable price in Panaca
is difficult, and that such a move would require the postal
service's approval before any decisions could be made.

In the end, the board decided to get more information and see
what the postal service had to say on the matter before
proceeding with any major decisions. Following this, the board
heard the maintenance reports, including a small issue involving
missing fuses and the availability thereof. Once these reports
were finished, the board adjourned for another month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Superfund Team Holds Second Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------
John Blodgett of The Western News reported that the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Advisory Team, outlined in Senate Bill 315 and
signed into law Montana by Gov. Steve Bullock on May 4, held its
second meeting on Dec. 18 in Helena.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chas Vincent (R-Libby), created the
advisory team, a trust fund and an operation and maintenance
account and a liaison, among other items related to the cleanup
of the Libby Asbestos Superfund site. The team is required by law
to meet quarterly and first met Sept. 21.

"The team is off to a strong start, with engaged representatives
of state government, local government and, most importantly, the
community," Karen Ogden, spokesperson for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, said via email.

The team is comprised of five people chosen according to
parameters outline in SB315. Three people had been chosen going
into the meeting: DEQ Director Tom Livers, who serves as the team
chair; Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck; and Rep. Steve
Gunderson (Montana District 1).

A fourth member, George Jamison, was recently confirmed by
Bullock as the team's citizen representative, Ogden wrote, while
Sen. Chas Vincent is expected to be confirmed as a member of the
Senate whose district includes at least a portion of Lincoln
County.
At the meeting, DEQ Project Manager Lisa Dewitt provided an
overview of the Libby Superfund Site and the status of its
operable units.

The team also discussed recruiting for the Libby Liaison
position, which, Ogden wrote, "is critical to the team's
success."

According to SB315, the liaison will be a DEQ employee who serves
as staff to the advisory team.

"The liaison shall represent the interests of Lincoln County and
the state by assisting the department of environmental quality in
dealing with federal agencies related to the Libby asbestos
superfund site," the bill states.

The bill also stipulates that the Lincoln County commission will
nominate three candidates for the position and the governor will
make the final decision.

Ogden said the team will recruit online from throughout Montana
and in the Spokane and Denver areas.

"There is not a formal deadline to fill the position," she wrote.
"However, the team decided to post the position in January and
set a goal of filling the position by March."

In addition to recruiting for the liaison position, Ogden said
another primary task is to provide the team with updated budget
information for fiscal year 2018.

The team's next meeting will be held in Libby in February or
March.

"It will be an evening meeting to make it convenient for
community members to attend," Ogden wrote. "We will announce and
publicize the meeting date as soon as it is finalized."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landscaper Who Had Cancer Gets Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mainichi reported that a landscape gardener has been awarded
workers' compensation after it was recognized that he developed
lung cancer as a result of inhaling asbestos in serpentine rock,
it has emerged.

The decision, made by the Kumagaya Labor Standards Inspection
Office in Saitama Prefecture, is significant because health
damage owing to asbestos in serpentine rock is rarely recognized
as a work-related accident. Moreover, it is not widely known that
serpentine rock contains asbestos, suggesting that there may be
many other similar victims across the country.

Serpentine rock can be found in numerous regions across Japan,
from Hokkaido to Kyushu, and often contains asbestos. According
to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, there has been a
decrease in the amount of mined serpentine rock in recent years.

However, in 2007, 1.56 million metric tons were mined in Japan,
and the rock is still in circulation as a stone material and as
part of cement. Furthermore, use of serpentine rock is permitted,
even though use of asbestos is banned under the Industrial Safety
and Health Act.

Asbestos is seen on a piece of serpentine rock under a
microscope.

Compensation for the 71-year-old gardener was officially
recognized in April 2017. According to investigations by the
inspection office, the man used to buy serpentine rock at a
quarry on the border of Aichi and Shizuoka prefectures two to
three times a week between about 1970 and 1982, and then sell it
on as garden rock.

The man also used to process the rock by chipping away at its
surface using electric tools. Between 1992 and 2005, he would
occasionally break up the stone as part of his landscape
gardening job. He was unaware that the rock contains asbestos,
and apparently did not take safety measures such as wearing a
mask.

In spring 2015, the gardener was diagnosed with lung cancer --
after which part of his lung was removed in an operation.
Suspecting that the cause of the cancer might be work-related, he
applied to the Kumagaya Labor Standards Inspection Office for
compensation.

The office examined some lung tissue removed in the operation,
and discovered a level of asbestos several times higher than the
level recognized as worthy of compensation. The inspection office
judged that the asbestos in the serpentine rock, which he had
been exposed to through his career, was the cause of the lung
cancer and that he should be compensated.

Professor Naomi Hisanaga, of Aichi Gakusen University, who
researches asbestos-related health issues due to serpentine rock,
says, "It is extremely significant that the inspection office has
recognized a link between the serpentine rock and the lung
cancer. The rock is abundant in Japan, so it is possible there
are many other victims out there. The government must inform
workers about the risks of working with serpentine rock."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alfa-Laval Sued for Late Husband's Lung Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a widow is
seeking damages over allegations her late husband's lung cancer
death was caused by asbestos exposure.

Nancy Wood, individually and as special representative of the
estate of Herbert Wood, deceased filed a complaint on Dec. 5 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Alfa Laval Inc., A. W.
Chesterton Inc., Certain-Teed Corp., et al. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Herbert Wood's career, he was exposed to and inhaled
or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The
suit states that on or about April 4, 2016, he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused. He died on March 29, the
suit states.

The plaintiff holds Alfa-Laval Inc., A. W. Chesterton Inc.,
Certain-Teed Corp., et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when they
knew or should have known 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 plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori
of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-726


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Complicates Apartment Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------
Lynnsey Gardner, Investigative Reporter of NEWS4 JAX, reported
that more apartment complexes tied to the Jacksonville Townhouse
Apartments, which suffered a major fire, have a history of safety
failures, the I-TEAM has learned.

The 250 people evacuated when a fire broke out Dec. 18 on the
ninth floor of the high-rise on Philips Highway near Emerson
Street remain displaced as cleanup efforts grew more complicated
when asbestos was found in the fire-damaged walls.

Cambridge Management operates the Jacksonville Townhouse
Apartments. The I-TEAM already learned that the company is under
investigation for not complying with an order from the state fire
marshal to get the complex's sprinklers working properly before
the fire broke out.

Five residents and one firefighter were injured in the fire, but
fire officials said that flames never would have grown into a
life-threatening, three-alarm fire if the sprinklers had worked
properly.

Cambridge Management operates six properties in Duval County that
are subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The I-TEAM learned that half of their properties
have been documented as having issues with fire safety.

Federal HUD records show Jacksonville Townhouse Apartments passed
inspection in 2014 with a score of 93 and no fire or asbestos
issues were noted. HUD officials told the I-TEAM that positive
report allowed for more time in between inspections, but in
October, the state fire marshal found a broken fire pump that
investigators said as still out of service when the fire started.

You may remember that the I-TEAM investigation into Eureka
Gardens exposed a faulty HUD inspection in 2015. Eureka Gardens
passed with a score of 86, but after the I-TEAM exposed mold,
mildew, crumbling stairs, exposed electrical wires and faulty
fire alarms, the score was tossed. When reinspected, 70 percent
of the units contained evidence of mold spores.

Cambridge's Timuquana Park Apartments in Wesconnett scored 63 in
a 2016 inspection, a near-failing score and fire safety issues
were documented.

The company's Hampton Villa Apartments in Northwest Jacksonville
a score of 65, and fire-safety issues were noted.

The Hilltop Village Apartments in Moncrief scored an 85, but once
again, fire-safety issues were also found by HUD inspectors.

We don't know what repairs have been made to any of these
Cambridge Management i based in Tacoma Washington and has a
regional office in Tampa. Its website shows it operates 126
properties nationally. The vast majority of them are in
Washington state (49) and Florida (53).

The Better Business Bureau grade for the company is a B- and
there are six complaints on file.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Says DENR Has Authority Over Asbestos Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KSFY reported that the City of Sioux Falls says the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has authority over an
issue regarding a local construction company's removal of
asbestos in 2016.

The DENR issued a notice of violation to Hultgren Construction
after it failed to properly dispose of asbestos in the Sioux
Falls Regional Sanitary Landfill while working on the Copper
Lounge.
The City said it has not issued any citations to Hultgren
Construction company because the DENR has jurisdiction over the
matter.

Landfill employees have identified the area where the asbestos
was deposited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dept. Concerned About Asbestos in Hotel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Nicoll of The Southland Times reported that firefighters and
two Kelvin Hotel staff were decontaminated following a fire at an
Invercargill hotel because they might have been exposed to
asbestos.

Firefighters arrived at the hotel after 11am and found the boiler
room in the basement of the hotel full of smoke and requested
back up.

Dry powder fire extinguishers were used to control the fire until
the power to the hotel was isolated, a fire communications
spokesman said.

Fire and Emergency Southland area assistant commander Scott
Lindsay said two hotel staff and the firefighters working in the
hotel were decontaminated because there was a possibility they
might have been exposed to asbestos.

The room contained lagging, which was a type of heat insulation
used on pipes on pipes and ducting, Lindsay said.

Some types of lagging contained asbestos and while it was unknown
if the insulation material the hotel used actually contained
asbestos, firefighters took precautions just in case, he said.

Because two staff had entered the room during the fire they were
also decontaminated as a precaution.

Staff from the Invercargill Licensing Trust, Environment
Southland and a hazardous substance technical liaison were also
present at the scene.

The hotel was using decontamination experts to clean the room
following the fire as a precaution.

The cause of the fire is unknown but believed to have started in
the coal hopper that feeds the boiler.

Invercargill Licensing Trust operations manager Greg McElhinney
said the hotel was 50 years old and there was some asbestos on
some of the piping in the room.

"My understanding is the area where there may have been asbestos
burning was very small."

The hotel had three boilers, one electric and one diesel and the
coal one which was affected by the fire.

The trust would investigate why the machine malfunctioned.
The fire was contained in the boiler room and didn't go beyond
it, McElhinney said.

The staff who entered the room, the general manager and the duty
manager, established where and how big the fire was, he said.

The hotel was operating as per normal aside from a few issues
with the computer system.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Effingham Firefighter Fighting Cancer Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Milldrum of Effingham Daily News reported that the Number
1 killer of firefighters is cancer, something fire department
officials in Effingham and across the country are seeking to
reduce.

Recognition of that has resulted in changes in the profession,
said Effingham Assistant Fire Chief Matt Kulesza.

"Back in my day, the dirtier your gear was, it was showing you
doing your job," he said.

Now there is an understanding that it is that dirt and smoke,
which are carrying all sorts of potentially dangerous materials
to the firefighters. Additionally, walking around with the
typical dirty gear has been exposing family, friends and other
people to whatever was in the smoke, Kulesza said.

It also changes the dynamic of how firefighters clear a scene,
Kulesza said.

Before firefighters would simply give high fives, drink some
water and then shed their gear.

Now they have to add cleaning their faces, necks and hands with
wipes as they remove their fire protection outer wear.

And when they return to the station they have to wash the truck,
themselves and their equipment used at the scene.

Today, when the team gets back to the station they become
involved with extensive cleaning. That includes washing the
trucks and feeding the soot covered clothing into an extractor
making it clean again.

Kulesza describes the extractor as effectively an old-school
industrial washing machine, one that removes carcinogens from the
gear.

"Twenty-two years ago, I wanted my gear dirty and black," he
said, to provide evidence he was working.

Now, he realizes that can expose his family to dangerous
chemicals and shorten his own lifespan.
"Firefighters have a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer
than the general U.S. population," according to the Firefighter
Cancer Support Network.

They had been working on limiting firefighters' exposure to
carcinogens, but the new research has led to altered procedures,
Kulesza said.

A major part of that is wiping down the neck, hands and face with
sanitary wipes.

This removes material and pulls out material that could have
entered a firefighters' pores, said Kulesza.

One of the most common examples related to firefighters' exposure
is them being around asbestos, said Kulesza.

The material was commonly used for decades as a fire-resistant
material, which is still present in many buildings. During a
fire, asbestos fibers can become airborne, settling on
firefighters and their equipment.

Although firefighters are protected during a fire, when they
remove their gear harmful things can be inhaled or get on their
bodies.

"Burning asbestos materials can damage asbestos to a point where
the fibers are easily released into the air," according to the
Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance. "Most protective equipment that
firefighters use during this phase will eliminate the risk of
inhalation, but what is important for firefighters to remember is
that asbestos products can continue to release asbestos fibers
into the air after the flames have been put out and as debris is
cooling off slowly. It is imperative that firefighters wear a
self-contained breathing apparatus, or SCBA, even after the
actual fire has been extinguished to avoid inhaling asbestos."

Asbestos exposure can lead to mesothelioma, an aggressive form of
cancer that firefighters are diagnosed with twice as often as the
general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

As the disease is only associated with asbestos exposure, the CDC
concluded it was a particular risk for firefighters.

The CDC study found that firefighters had increased rates cancer
in areas like "significant excess risk was reported for brain,
stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, testes, multiple myeloma and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma."

The study covered 30,000 firefighters in Chicago, San Francisco
and Philadelphia from 1950 to 2009.

It continued in its report:

"Compared with the US population, we found small to moderate
increases in risk for several cancer sites and for all cancers
combined, stemming mostly from excess malignancies of the
respiratory, digestive and urinary systems in otherwise healthy
individuals. Our findings are consistent with previous studies
and strengthen evidence of a relation between firefighters'
occupational exposure and cancer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Doubles Asbestos Removal Spending
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Fisher, Senior Reporter of Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald,
reported that spending on asbestos removal in North Ayrshire
Council has almost doubled in just a year.

And the vast majority of the money being spent is on residential
properties, tipping the scales at over GBP900,000.

But North Ayrshire Council say the increase, which is up from
around GBP500,000, is due to the identification of a certain
house type and their pro-active work to tackle the issue for
their residents.

Over the last three years the spending on inspecting, treating
and removing asbestos in North Ayrshire Council owned buildings
was:

   2014-15 - GBP492,371.55
   2015-16 - GBP561,726.20
   2016-17 - GBP969,265.40.

The breakdown for the types of buildings that the works have been
carried out in was:

   Residential
      2014-15 - GBP431,068.55
      2015-16 - GBP490,856.07
      2016-17 - GBP922,124.98

   Schools
      2014-15 - GBP41,438.00
      2015-16 - GBP49,493.82
      2016-17 - GBP38,585.64

   Commercial / Operational
      2014-15 - GBP19,865.00
      2015-16 - GBP21,376.31
      2016-17 - GBP8,554.78

A North Ayrshire Council spokesperson said: "The increase in
spending on asbestos inspection and removal during 2016 reflects
our proactive approach to removing asbestos from a number of
properties within our housing stock.

"This project was approved by Cabinet in September 2016 following
the identification of the presence of asbestos-containing
material in a small number of our Council houses.

"The material was found during routine sampling in the loft
spaces of a particular type of property known to be of Weir
construction, which account for around five per cent of the
Council's housing stock.

"The Council has been working closely with industry experts on
this issue and they confirmed that the type of asbestos-
containing material concerned presented an extremely low risk
provided it is not disturbed."

The Herald reported in 2017 how up to 600 homes were affected
across North Ayrshire which would potentially cost around
GBP1.7million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boiler Operator Sued Asbestos Maker for Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a former boiler
operator is suing numerous asbestos products manufacturers,
citing alleged negligence.

Michael Landis filed a complaint on Nov. 27 in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against Trane US Inc., A.W. Chesterton
Inc., and Baltimore Aircoil Co. Inc., alleging that they failed
to exercise care and caution for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his
entire career from 1964 to 1992, he was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants.
On Nov. 8, he allegedly was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an
asbestos-induced disease.

He allegedly has suffered great physical pain, mental anguish,
lost wages and a shortened life span.

The plaintiff holds Trane US Inc., A.W. Chesterton Inc., and
Baltimore Aircoil Co. Inc. responsible because the defendants
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 plaintiff requests a trial by jury; and seeks damages in
excess of $25,000, costs of this action, and any further relief
as the court deems just and proper. He is represented by Andrew
A. O'Brien, Christopher J. Thoron, Bartholomew J. Baumstark,
Gerald J. FitzGerald and Adam J. Reynolds of O'Brien Law Firm PC
in St. Louis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Historic Crounse House
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Floyd Mair of Guilderland News reported that several
town residents including a restoration contractor are upset that
the town and village, which jointly own the Crounse House on the
outskirts of Altamont, plan to tear it down.

The Crounse House is a Federal-style single-family home built in
1833 by Frederick Crounse, Altamont's first doctor, who practiced
there on the village's main street, now Route 146. His patients
included injured Civil War soldiers.

The house is a rare site of Civil War history in the Northeast,
according to Bob Keough of the Sons of the Union Veterans of the
Civil War, who spoke in favor of the building's preservation at
an Altamont village board meeting two years ago.

While village and town officials have said the Crounse House has
little left of historic value, experts disagree.

The Crounse House is an example of vernacular architecture, said
Cara Macri, the acting executive director of the Historic Albany
Foundation, meaning that it was "not highbrow, not a mansion."

It's a good example of general architecture of its time, she
said, adding, "That doesn't mean it's lesser in the eyes of
preservation or history."

She recalled that, when she walked through the building in 2014,
she noticed the flooring in the front hall had started to pull
up, and underneath, it had been lined with newspapers written in
German. That kind of detail, she said, creates a very interesting
record about the building, the people who lived there, and the
community.

"Just because it is not high style does not mean a building does
not have historic value or merit," Macri said.

Offering historic buildings for sale with restrictive covenants
saying they must be bought and renovated can take time, said
Susan Herlands Holland, former executive director of Historic
Albany, who is now with Historic Ithaca.

"It was a lovely house when we went in very simple but it's a
product of its time and it has its own story to tell, which is
just as important as the high-style mansions and estates that are
often considered more worth saving," Macri said.

But, Herlands Holland said, "It's like dating. The right buyer
will come along eventually."

The historic value of a building of the Crounse House era,
Herlands Holland said, is that it is of its time, that its time
is evident in its construction.

Herlands Holland noted that the town of Ulysses has bought a
beautiful Greek Revival church that is 1830s-ish and sits in the
middle of their four corners; they took the risk, and they're
selling it through a real-estate agent, with a restrictive
covenant.  The church has remediation issues, she said, making it
very similar to the Crounse House.

Guilderland resident Thomas Capuano, a retired professor of
languages and avocational builder, said that it seems as though
the town and village should be able to save money by selling the
building to someone who wants to restore it. He writes in a
letter to the Enterprise editor how dismayed he was to read of
the town board's vote, following the village board's lead, to
demolish the building.

Capuano offered the example of a building at the corner of Mill
and Main that he said was a ruin when he was a child, where he
and his friends often played, "that seemed like it was destined
for nothing but being torn down." He said the current owners have
brought it back to life and done a beautiful restoration.

That, he said, is what gives Altamont its unique character: the
way that the homeowners maintain their historic properties.

The Crounse House, Capuano said, is such an integral part of the
small settlement of Knowersville that he thinks it's a shame to
tear it down.

Capuano that he has rebuilt two barns before and, while he hasn't
done historic renovation, no building project scares him. He said
he could stabilize the roof himself, to buy some time for someone
interested in doing a historic renovation.

Bill Skowe, a restoration contractor, says that, when the town
and village bought the foreclosed property for $40,000 a decade
ago, no one else was allowed to bid on it. He wrote in a letter
to the Enterprise editor, referring to the town and village,
"They had first choice to buy it, eliminating others, me
included, as a qualified restoration contractor from bidding it
to save it."
Because the town and village had right of first refusal, Skowe
said, it was not a fair auction.

Brad Maione, spokesman for Albany County, sent The Enterprise a
copy of a 2005 resolution that provided for selling properties to
municipalities in guarantee of taxes. He also sent a copy of the
county resolution agreeing, in March 2006, to sell the vacant
house and 2.8-acre property to the town and village for a total
of $40,756 in guarantee of taxes, interest, and penalties owed.
The resolution notes that the town and village were interested,
at the time, in acquiring the property for use in community
functions.

The addition at the back of the Crounse House, Skowe said, may be
unsafe. "But the main structure is certainly not unsafe," he
said. "It stands plumb and square and straight, so the foundation
hasn't slipped away at this point."

The town and village should offer the building out to bid, he
said, and should make the sale contingent upon the buyer owning
the building, using it as a residence, and saving the main
structure.

Guilderland Supervisor Peter Barber said that the vote to
demolish simply gives the town the option of demolition if
building inspector Jacqueline Coons determines that there is an
imminent danger of the building's collapse.

"We're obviously willing to consider all options," Barber said,
including seeing if any individual buyers might be interested in
taking on the property in order to renovate and live in the
historic house.

The town, Barber said, got involved at the urging of the village,
and he would defer to the village board of trustees and the
mayor, since the property is part of the gateway to the village.

If the village wanted to sell it to a not-for-profit organization
or to a buyer interested in renovation, Barber said, he would
"have no problem with that."

Altamont's mayor, Kerry Dineen, said in an email, of the village
trustees decision, "The board voted unanimously against restoring
and stabilizing the house.  The Guilderland Town Board echoed our
decision at their December 2017 meeting."

Dineen also wrote, in answer to Enterprise questions, that she
had never heard of people interested in purchasing the Crounse
House before the town and village bought it. "The property sat
vacant for years," she said.

Demolition debacle

Skowe also took issue with the town's stated plan to have its
highway department workers demolish the structure, despite the
known presence of asbestos.

He wrote, in a Dec. 21 letter to the editor of The Enterprise,
"The town's highway department is not a New York State certified
asbestos-removal company. Neither the town nor Altamont has a
license to remove it. If I, as a contractor, applied for a permit
to demolish, you would force me to pay for an asbestos and lead-
removal licensed contractor to demolish it."

Building inspector Jacqueline Coons told The Enterprise that her
declaring the building condemned eases the regulations, somewhat,
related to its demolition.

"If a building is unsafe, certain things are not required, if
it's demolished by the owner," she said. "Part of the regulations
for surveying it could go away by me declaring it condemned."

She said that knowing and complying with the regulations for
demolishing a building that contains asbestos is the
responsibility of the workers doing the demolition.

"If they're caught doing the work and they don't have proper
qualifications, they or the town could get fined. That's why I
hope they know what they're doing," she said.

Highway Superintendent Steve Oliver said that he had simply
offered to demolish the building, and had not discussed it much
with the town yet. He said he has never taken down a building
containing asbestos before, and that, if he were asked to do it,
he would "go to the authorities that deal with that" and then
"follow whatever direction or guidelines that we have to."

There are three state agencies that regulate work on buildings
containing asbestos: the departments of health, labor, and
environmental conservation.

The Department of Health's regulations state that workers
involved in asbestos abatement must first receive appropriate
training from a safety-training provider accredited by the New
York State Department of Health before being certified through
the New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Licensing and
Certification Unit.

To become certified to work with asbestos in New York State, a
worker must first attend training and then apply for a
certificate, according to the website. In addition, the website
says, "when engaged in asbestos work activities you must be
working for a New York State Department of Labor licensed
asbestos contractor."

According to Rick Georgeson, a local spokesman for the Department
of Environmental Conservation, waste from a building containing
asbestos must be disposed of at a DEC-permitted facility that can
legally accept asbestos waste.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Man Sues Employer for Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aodhan O'Faolain and Ray Managh of the Irish News reported that
"a dying man," who claims he contracted terminal cancer from
being exposed to asbestos dust 45 years ago, has asked the High
Court to speed up the hearing of a damages claim against a former
Co Kildare employer.

77-year-old Patrick Hayes, who is terminally ill in a hospice in
Monasterevin, is suing Tegral Building Products Limited and
alleges he was not warned of the dangers of air-borne asbestos
fibres or given protection when he worked at Tegral Building
Products Limited factory in Athy for 42 weeks in 1972.

Mr Justice Michael Twomey heard that the Co Kildre firm, which is
yet to file a defence to the claim, stated in correspondence that
it has no record confirming that Mr Hayes worked with it.

Barrister Rachel Meagher, counsel for Mr Hayes, told the court
that he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma --- a form of
cancer most commonly associated with asbestos exposure.

Ms Meagher, who appeared with solicitors Patrick V Boland and
Sons, Newbridge, said Mr Hayes claimed the company had been
negligent and in breach of duty by its failure to have any regard
for his safety when he worked for them.

Mr Hayes alleges he was required to work in an environment where
he was likely to inhale asbestos dust and claims the company
failed to provide him with a safe place of work while having to
move asbestos sheets which are used for insulation and fire
proofing.

During the course of his employment he claims he was not given an
adequate protection and had inhaled asbestos fibres, the exposure
to which he alleged had resulted in his cancer.

Barrister Neal Flynn, counsel for Tegral Building Products, told
Judge Twomey that Mr Hayes, with an address at Kilcrow, Athy, Co
Kildare, had worked for most of his life in the UK and had
commenced proceedings against the company only on December 12th
last after returning to Ireland in September.

When the case came before the High Court Ms Meagher said her
client was "a dying man" and was currently continuously on oxygen
in Monasterevin Hospice.  "It is not known how long he will
live," she said.

She said chemotherapy and radiotherapy had been deemed by his
doctors as being only marginally beneficial and that treatment of
his condition was largely palliative.

Ms Meagher said Mr Hayes claimed that the only place he had been
exposed to asbestos during his working career was when he was
working for Tegral in Athy. She said it had been established
through Social Welfare records that Mr Hayes had worked for the
company for 42 weeks in 1972 and had paid social welfare
contributions for those weeks.

She told the court it was her opinion and that of his solicitors
that  the company had no bona fide defence to Mr Hayes' claim and
she asked the court, due to his condition and unknown prognosis,
for various orders expediting the hearing of his claim.

Mr Hayes' legal team sought an order lawyers sought an order
requiring the filing of a defence to his claim by January 3 and a
further court order directing that his personal evidence be taken
on commission by a lawyer at Monasterevin Hospice on January 8
next.  Ms Meagher said Mr Hayes would not be able to come to
court to give evidence.

Tegral's barrister, Neal Flynn, said his client would "be putting
forward a defence," and was agreeable to allowing Mr Hayes give
evidence on commission but raised concerns about the speed in
which the case was being forced on especially as there was a lack
of clinical evidence before the court concerning Mr Hayes'
condition.

Mr Flynn said it was asking the court to take a huge leap in
allowing Mr Hayes' application to be squeezed into such a short
time space.  Although Mr Hayes' medical records had been
forwarded to the defendants Mr Hayes' legal team did not know
what particular inquiries would be made by Tegral in order for it
to meet the case.

"Mr Hayes has spent a large portion of his life working on
building sites throughout the UK and could have been exposed to
asbestos on any building project," Mr Flynn said.  "It is
unreasonable for the plaintiff to force these proceedings on when
whe are simply not ready to meet them."

Mr Justice Twomen, in his ruling, commended both sets of lawyers
for agreeing certain matters that would expedite the claim. He
said there was a lack of detailed medical evidence before the
court and he noted correspondence from the company that said it
had no record of having employed Mr Hayes.

"I think the balance of justice lies in allowing evidence to be
taken on commission on January 8th next and the court so
directs," Judge Twomey said. Adjourning the matter he said he
would not make any order regarding legal costs of the
application.


                            *********


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  * * *