CAR_Public/180202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, February 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 25



                            Headlines


A1 DIABETES: "Mitchum" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AABACO SMALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Meyer" Suit
ADVANCED MICRO: Sued Over Wrongful Handling of Spectre Flaw
ADVANCED MICRO: March 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AETNA INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Action

AETNA INC: Settles HIV Privacy Class Action for $17 Million
AFLAC INC: Former Employees File Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
AFTERLIFE NETWORK: Memorial Website Could Face Lawsuit
AFTERLIFE NETWORK: Lawsuit Alleges Copyright Infringement
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Car Owner Wins Exploding Sunroof Claim
APPLE INC: Four More Class Actions Over Throttling Defect Filed
APPLE INC: "Gilson" Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
APPLE INC: Attorney Files Motion for Preliminary Injunction

ASCENSION HEALTH: $29.5-Mil. Settlement in Class Action Suit
ATKINS NUTRITIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Fernandez" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: "Galvan" Sues Over Unreversed Charges
BANK OF AMERICA: $408.5-Mil. Settlement in ISDAFix Antitrust Suit
BAZAARVOICE INC: "Harris" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal

BURGER KING: Court Dismisses "Tarr" FACTA Suit
CAMPBELL COUNTY, KY: Summary Judgment in "Coleman" Affirmed
CANADA: Alberta Seniors Lose Suit Over Long-Term Care Fees
CANADA: May 10 Hearing on Proposed Sixties Scoop Settlement
CANADA: Judge Certifies Ottawa Taxi Plate Holders' Class Action

CANADA: Ville-Marie Expressway Class Action Settlement Okayed
CF ARCIS: Court Extends Deadline to Reply to "Hart" Suit
CONNECTICUT LOTTERY: Class Action Mulled Over Drawing Blunder
CREDIT PAYMENT: Not Liable for Promoter's Alleged TCPA Violations
CREDIT PAYMENT: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Ruling

CYNOSURE INC: Averts False Advertising Class Action
DITECH FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended "Scally" Suit Granted
DOREL JUVENILE: Judge OKs Suit Over Cosco Car Seats to Continue
DORM DELICATESSEN: "Estefes" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
EI DUPONT: Two Law Firms Appointed to Oversee GenX Class Action

ELBIT IMAGING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
EMILY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Common Law Conversion Claim Denied
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Amended ERISA Suit Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Diesel Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defeat Device
FOREVER 21: Judge Tosses Sales Tax Class Action

FORTY NINERS: "Nevarez" Pre-Certification Discovery Protocol OK'd
FRESHPET INC: Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
GATES, NY: Tom Golisano Mulls Class Action Over Property Taxes
GOPRO INC: "Dye" Sues Over Share Price Drop
GOPRO INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action

HEALTH CARE: Seeks Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
HEALTH INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Moser" TCPA Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Fonseca" Discrimination Suit Removed to N.D. Ca
HILL BROTHERS: $850K Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Final Approval
HILL BROTHERS: Court Awards $283K Attys' Fees in ERISA Suit

INNERVISION LLC: M. Miller & Son Sues Over Illegally-Fax Ads
INTEL CORP: "Lee" Sues Over Processor Defect
INTEL CORP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
INTEL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Appeal Talcum Powder Case Ruling

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Birchwood May Join Flushable Wipes Suit
KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Asks Feds to Probe Fraudulent Claims
LIBQUAL FENCE: "Monzano-Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
MARKETRON BROADCAST: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Reese"
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: April 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MASONITE CORP: "Mathis" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MDL 2779: Maryland County Joins Artificial Turf Class Action
MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Bid to Stay Smokey Alley Antitrust Suit
MRI INTERNATIONAL: $13MM Settlement with Suzuki Has Prelim OK
MRI INTERNATIONAL: $415K Settlement with ICAG Has Prelim OK

MURRAY GOULBURN: Expected to Pay More Than $200MM in Class Action
NATIONWIDE TRUCKERS: Affirmative Defenses Partly Struck
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Student Loans
NEW ENERGY: Payton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Phone Records in "Johnson"

NISSAN OF BRANDON: Arbitration Ruling in "Lowe" Suit Affirmed
OCALA, FL: Class Certification Denial in Discount Suit Reversed
OGLETREE DEAKINS: Female Shareholders File Class Action
OHIO: "Falls-Bey" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
PALABORA MINING: Irate Mine Workers Take PMC to Court

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
PICK-A-PART: $195K Settlement in "Torres" Has Prelim Approval
PORTLAND, OR: Police Deny 'Kettling' Protesters
PTZ INSURANCE: Davis & Gilbert Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
PULTE HOMES: Tenn. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Robinson"

RECONTRUST COMPANY: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Allred" Action
RICHMOND, KY: Police Leave Policy Violates State Law, Suit Says
RITE AID: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action
RUSTIC CANYON: Judge Certifies Price-Fixing Class Action
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Claims vs. I. Dawood Dismissed

SIRIUS XM: Summary Judgment Granted in DPPA Class Action
STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Strumlauf" Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Crowell & Moring Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
STERLING JEWELERS: Sex Discrimination Claims Narrowed
STOCKTON ENTERPRISES: Court Stays "Predmore" Suit

SUNDANCE INC: Taco Bell Employees File Wage Theft Class Action
SUNSHINE LANDSCAPE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
SWIRE OILFIELD: Must Produce ADP & Corban Docs in "Landry"
TEMPOE LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Garcia" Class Suit
TESARO INC: March 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

UNITED STATES: FAA Faces 2nd Class Action Over Drone
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Thorson" Suit
UNITED STATES: Remaining Claims in "Nassiri" Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Indonesian Christians Ordered to Check in at ICE
VOLKSWAGEN AG: UK Car Owners May Get Emissions Payout

WARREN COUNTY, PA: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid Affirmed
WELLS FARGO: Sappington Appeals Ruling in "Williams" Class Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Dzielak" Suit
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Conditional Certification in "Shaw" Denied
WOODLAKE COUNTRY CLUB: Lawsuit Goes Forward as Class Action

XUNLEI LIMITED: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
YAMBO INC: "Pavon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
YELP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
YELP INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
YELP INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit

YELP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit
YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court Refuses to Reassign Inmates Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits

* Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Key Trends in Workplace Class Action
* TDs Call for Tracker Mortgage Scandal Class Action v. Banks


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Ct. Has Jurisdiction on Worker's Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spoliation Sanctions vs. J-M Mfg Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court May Junk Varney Couple Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Has 8th Amendment Claim for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sep. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sep.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Still Defends 725 PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had 54,000 Open Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $573MM Liability at Sept30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Faces 37,000 AO Claimants at Sept30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 42 PI Lawsuits at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Oct. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnham Mansion Has Asbestos Materials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc Powder Trial Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Hazard Not Properly Mitigated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disparities Among Lung Cancer Patients Treatment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Buys Back $670MM Worth of Asbestos Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ordinance Criminalizes Asbestos Depositing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pays Maximum Fine in Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Crocker Elem. School Not Uncommon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Action to Ban Asbestos Use in Makeup Urged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defunct Wis. Foundry Exposed Workers to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aubin Ruling Changes Nothing in Florida

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies After Years of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Refused Planning After Asbestos Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Urges Talk on Open Pit, Exposed Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Findland Finds Russian Gas-Masks Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Not Removed Prior to Bldg Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Sites Named for Potential Redevelopment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Hospital Asbestos Find Hindered Repair Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inhaling Asbestos Fibers Causes Farmers' Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Former Mid-City Lanes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closes Bookshop After Asbestos Discovery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Examines Residential Insulation, Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Drug-Hit Toilets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Costs in Plant Up 36%
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railroad Workers' Case Allowed to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Uncovers Asbestos Removal at Airport

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CFPUA Crews Working to Replace Asbestos Pipe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Forster Mill Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Yanks 12 Items After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Air Named in Couple's Injury Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee OKs $38,000 Asbestos Removal Contract

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Pollutes Australian Beach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Not Pre-Empted by SAA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Says Engr. Husband Died of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prof. Says Asbestos Isn't Always Harmful
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garage with Asbestos Roof Set Alight

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Hopes Mngt to Reverse Asbestos Stigma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Selection for Talcum Powder Case Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Station to Close Due to Asbestos, Mold
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Bid to Audit Asbestos Trust Alive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Looking for Asbestos After Condo Fires

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at College Gave Former Lecturer Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Alberici, Others for Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren School Closes 2 Rooms After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closes Woodside Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hidden Talc Leads to $22M Award to Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Confused on Claire's Cosmetics Recall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Damages for Failing to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG Settles Asbestos Storage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Demanding Swift Asbestos Ban Introduced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Recalls 9 Makeup Products

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Named in Girard Widow Injury Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Audit Says Most Australian Schools Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Local Church From Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Risk After Fire on Abandoned School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposed as Building Cladding Came Away

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Cancer From Husband's Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: P.R. Families Reminded of 2nd-Hand Exposure








                            *********



A1 DIABETES: "Mitchum" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Mitchum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply, Inc. and
Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 00180, (N.D. Ill., January
10, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A1 was engaged in the marketing and sale of medical products and
devices. Over the course of about two weeks, Mitchum received
approximately eight automated telephone calls from A1. Plaintiff
registered his telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call
Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
      111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Phone: (312) 212-4355
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


AABACO SMALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Meyer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case, RONALD MEYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AABACO SMALL BUSINESS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02102-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Meyer and Luz Betzabeth Bedoya-Apolo initiated the nationwide
putative class action suit against Defendants Aabaco and Yahoo!
Inc. seeking redress for the Defendants' alleged failure to
provide web hosting services to customers, failure to provide
notice of termination, cancellation or suspension, and failure to
cancel services in accordance with the Defendants' Terms of
Service.

Plaintiff Meyer, a resident and citizen of Michigan, signed up
for the Defendants' Web Hosting sometime between 1998 and 2000 to
have and maintain a photography related website.  Within his
website, he also paid for and maintained two separate URLs for
two children's books he wrote and illustrated.  Meyer paid $9.95
a month for the Defendants to host his website and to provide him
with email accounts tied to his website.

Meyer received and used Web Hosting until October of 2016 when
the Defendants abruptly and without reason or notice stopped
providing the Web Hosting, although they continued to charge him
monthly through March of 2017.  Meyer alleges that as a result of
the Web Hosting disruption, potential buyers of his books and
photography could no longer visit his URLs or email him.  He
Meyer alleges on information and belief that the Defendants only
stopped charging him because he filed the instant action on April
14, 2017.

Meyer was never informed that the Defendants may suspend or
terminate the Web Hosting services with no notice or reason while
continuing to bill and collect payment.  He also asserts that the
Defendants never asked him to verify his domain name information
as part of compliance with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers or Internet Names Worldwide.

Plaintiff Apolo, a resident and citizen of California, started
paying for the Defendants' Web Hosting services in approximately
2011 when she became the owner and operator of the Apolo Driving
& Traffic School in Van Nuys, California.  Apolo used the
Defendants' services to maintain a website to facilitate and
advertise her business.  The annual fee for the Defendants'
services was approximately $140.  In approximately March of 2017,
the Defendants abruptly and without reason or notice stopped
providing Plaintiff Apolo with the Web Hosting that was paid in
full through August of 2017.

Apolo was never informed that the Defendants may terminate the
Web Hosting services without notice or reason.  Apolo alleges on
information and belief that the Defendants suspended her Web
Hosting for approximately one week, possibly longer.  Apolo
alleges that the disruption in service damaged her business and
jeopardized her license to operate a driving school with the
Department of Motor Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of any person
or entity in the United States with a Web Hosting Account with
the Defendant and who (1) was charged for, but was not provided,
with Web Hosting services; or (2) asked for cancellation of Web
Hosting services pursuant to the Terms of Service but was
continued to be billed by the Defendants.  They assert claims for
(1) unfair business practices in violation of the California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) fraudulent business practices
in violation of the UCL; (3) unlawful business practices in
violation of the UCL; (4) violation of the False Advertising Law
("FAL"); (5) breach of contract; and (6) unjust enrichment.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).
They Defendants contend that the alleged internet service
disruptions with the Web Hosting they were providing to the
Plaintiffs do not amount to a violation of the UCL or the FAL,
nor constitute a breach of the Terms of Service contract
governing the Web Hosting.  They further contend that the unjust
enrichment claim fails because the parties' relationship is
governed by the Terms of Service.

Judge Davila granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He granted the motion as to Count I ("unfair"
business practices) with leave to amend, and granted with
prejudice as to Counts II ("fraudulent" business practices), III
("unlawful" business practices), IV (FAL), and VI (breach of
contract).  He denied the motion as to Count VII (unjust
enrichment).

The Judge agrees with the Defendants' contention that the unjust
enrichment claim fails as a matter of law because an enforceable
written contract exists between the parties.  Nevertheless, he
says the Plaintiffs are entitled to plead claims in the
alternative.  He also holds that in light of the disclosures made
in the Terms of Service, the Plaintiffs cannot establish the
requisite causal connection between the Defendants' alleged
fraudulent conduct and the Plaintiffs' injuries.  Hence, the
Plaintiffs' UCL fraud claim and FAL claim are dismissed with
prejudice.

Ronald Meyer & Luz Betzabeth Bedoya-Apolo, Plaintiffs,
represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

Aabaco Small Business, LLC & Yahoo! Inc., Defendants, represented
by Matthew Stewart Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP & Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


ADVANCED MICRO: Sued Over Wrongful Handling of Spectre Flaw
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roland Moore-Colyer, writing for the INQUIRER, reports that
chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) has been slapped
with a class-action lawsuit over claims that it artificially
inflated its stock price by keeping quiet about the fact that the
high-profile Spectre flaws affect its chips.

A filing to a US court in the northern district of California
made by Pomerantz LLP on behalf of shareholder Doyun Kim claims
that AMD's initial reaction to the flaw, which saw it declare
that Spectre posed "near zero risk" to its chips before admitting
that its processors were, in fact, affected by both variants of
the vulnerability, resulted in AMD's stock prices plummeting

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common
shares, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the filing states.

These are strong accusation for flaws which only recently came to
light and the scope of their reach and potential to cause damage
is arguably still being figured out.

But AMD is not alone in facing court filings. Intel is in the
same boat, and has already been whacked by multiple class-action
lawsuits over both Meltdown and Spectre.

Given that both CPU flaws have effectively sat dormant for years,
throwing court cases at Intel and AMD may seem a little unfair.

That being said, Google's Project Zero team, which was
instrumental in uncovering the CPU flaws, had apparently informed
AMD about Spectre back in June 2017, so one could argue that the
firm should have been more forthcoming about the issue.

The filing made against AMD demands a jury trial, which means
that if it goes forward, the chipmaker will be given a thorough
grilling over Spectre could see its share prices fall again.

It's a bit sad really given AMD was finding new success in the
chip market with its Ryzen processors which can really give some
of Intel's CPUs a run for their money. [GN]


ADVANCED MICRO: March 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:AMD) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-00321, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of AMD between February 21,
2017 and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Plaintiff 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 "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AMD securities between
February 21, 2017, and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until March 19, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and quantity of shares purchased.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. manufactures semiconductor products,
which includes microprocessors, embedded microprocessors,
chipsets, graphics, video and multimedia products. The Company
offers its products worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a fundamental
security flaw in AMD's processor chips renders them susceptible
to hacking; and (ii) as a result, AMD's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 3, 2018, media outlets reported that Google Project
Zero's security team had discovered serious security flaws
affecting computer processors built by Intel Corporation, AMD and
other chipmakers.   In a blog post, the Project Zero team stated
that one of these security flaws--dubbed the "Spectre"
vulnerability--allows third parties to gather passwords and other
sensitive data from a system's memory.  In response to the
Project Zero team's announcement, a spokesperson for AMD advised
investors that while its own chips were vulnerable to one variant
of Spectre, there was "near zero risk" that AMD chips were
vulnerable to the second Spectre variant.

Then, on January 11, 2018, post-market, AMD issued a press
release entitled "An Update on AMD Processor Security,"
acknowledging that its chips were, in fact, susceptible to both
variants of the Spectre security flaw.

On this news, AMD's share price fell $0.12 or 0.99%, to close at
$12.02 on January 12, 2018.

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


AETNA INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 17 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The District  of Connecticut, case no. 3:18-cv-00083, on behalf
of stockholders of Aetna, Inc, ("Aetna" or the "Company") (NYSE:
AET) who held Aetna securities and have been harmed by Aetna and
its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of
Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company
to CVS Health Corporation.

Under the terms of the agreement, each stock of Aetna's public
common stockholders will be converted into the right to receive
(i) 0.8378 (the "Exchange Ratio") fully paid and non-assessable
shares of CVS Common Stock (the "Share Consideration") and (ii)
$145.00 in cash without interest thereon (the "Cash
Consideration" and, together with the Share Consideration, the
"Merger Consideration"), which would value Aetna at approximately
$207.94 per share.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $77 billion.  The complaint alleges that S-4
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company; (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC ("Lazard"), in support of its fairness
opinions; (iii) the terms and details surrounding any alternative
indications of interest in the Company solicited or received from
other company; and (iv) the actual Merger Consideration.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from January 17, 2018.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

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

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


AETNA INC: Settles HIV Privacy Class Action for $17 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
thousands of HIV patients whose names and conditions were visible
through glassine envelopes sent through the mail will share $17
million that Aetna Insurance Co. has agreed to pay in settlement
of claims that the insurer failed to protect the individuals'
privacy.

The settlement, upon judicial approval, would resolve a
nationwide class action breach of privacy lawsuit filed in
federal court in Philadelphia in August over, ironically, notices
mailed as part of a settlement of a previous class action
claiming the health insurer's mail order requirement for
medications violated HIV patients' privacy.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of current and former Aetna
customers taking medication to treat HIV or PrEP, a pre-exposure
prophylactic medication. The lead plaintiff is a man using a
pseudonym who, according to court papers, feared "severe harm"
would befall him should his true identity be revealed.

According to the proposed settlement agreement, Hartford,
Connecticut-based Aetna would pay $17,161,200 to the plaintiffs--
a base payment of at least $500 to each of the nearly 12,000
patients who were sent the glassine window envelopes, through
which instructions for filling HIV medications were clearly
visible.  This settlement amount will also be used to pay $75
each to customers whose private health information Aetna
improperly disclosed to its lawyers and mail vendor.

The settlement also allows patients who were sent the allegedly
invasive notices and who can demonstrate financial or
nonfinancial harm to submit claims for additional monetary
awards.

In the lead plaintiff's case, one of his family members found the
mailing and believed he was living with HIV and had not confided
in his family. He was then forced to admit his condition to his
family, according to the complaint.

"HIV still has a negative stigma associated with it, and I am
pleased that this encouraging agreement with Aetna shows that
HIV-related information warrants special care," the lead
plaintiff said in a statement released by the AIDS Law Project of
Pennsylvania.  The nonprofit public interest law firm that works
to protect the legal rights of people living with HIV in
Pennsylvania and South New Jersey teamed up with Philadelphia-
based class action firm Berger & Montague and the Legal Action
Center on the suit.

In an emailed statement, Aetna said the company is implementing
measures to ensure that an incident like this does not happen
again.

"Through our outreach efforts, immediate relief program and this
settlement we have worked to address the potential impact to
members following this unfortunate incident," according to the
statement.

Frederick Santarelli -- fpsantarelli@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of
Elliott Greenleaf in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, and Matthew Kanny
and Donna Wilson, partners in the Los Angeles office of Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, represented Aetna in the settlement.

The incident giving rise to the agreement is believed to be the
world's largest data breach involving HIV privacy, according to
Ronda Goldfein, executive director of the AIDS Law Project.

"The fear of losing control of HIV-related information and the
resulting risk of discrimination are barriers to health care,"
Ms. Goldfein said in a statement.  "This settlement reinforces
the importance of keeping such information private, and we hope
it reassures people living with HIV, or those on PrEP, that they
do not have to choose between privacy and health care." [GN]


AFLAC INC: Former Employees File Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Kuehner-Hebert, writing for Benefitspro, reports that
nine former employees of Aflac Inc. are claiming pervasive fraud
and other misconduct at the Columbus, Georgia-based insurance
company, including pushing them to use sales tactics akin to
those of the Wells Fargo scandal, as well as "ruthlessly"
retaliating against whistleblowers.

The draft of the class-action lawsuit, provided by the
plaintiffs' attorney, Dimitry Joffe, alleges that Aflac:

   -- Churns an army of sales associates every year, keeping the
accounts that they had managed to open during their short tenure
at the company for itself as house accounts.

   -- Directs every aspect of what its sales associates do and
how they do it -- but misclassifies them as independent
contractors rather than employees to avoid the need to pay
payroll and unemployment insurance taxes on their behalf and to
provide them with employment benefits.

   -- Places an "incredible pressure" on its sales associates to
meet unrealistic sales goals, which most of them cannot meet
without resorting to improper or outright fraudulent underwriting
techniques encouraged or condoned by Aflac, such as selling
policies to customers without their knowledge, authorization or
consent by forging their signatures; illicitly bundling
standalone insurance policies; and falsifying applications in
order to sell policies to unqualified customers.

   -- Ruthlessly retaliates against its associates who blow the
whistle on these fraudulent practices and report them up the
ladder to the very top of its hierarchy.

   -- Deceives its shareholders and regulators by manipulating
its key operational metrics and by cannibalizing its own pre-
existing accounts in order to report "new" policies and to create
an illusion of growth.

One of the plaintiffs is Martin Conroy, who began working for
Aflac in 2004, became a district sales coordinator for Aflac in
2007, was honored as a President's Club Member -- the highest
honor Aflac bestows -- four times, and received numerous state
and national awards and recognitions during his successful career
at Aflac, according to the lawsuit.

At the end of 2015, after Conroy reported a fraud whereby Aflac's
regional representatives had been knowingly issuing policies to
the New York City employees not qualified for such policies in
violation of the state insurance regulations, he was stripped of
team members and accounts and ultimately forced out of Aflac, the
lawsuit alleges.

On Jan. 12, Aflac released a statement:

"Recent media stories regarding Aflac contain false allegations
made by a very small group of independent contractors. Aflac
intends to aggressively fight these allegations beginning with
filing for their dismissal.  The unfounded articles allege claims
including insider trading, fraudulent sales and financial
manipulation.  The company has investigated these claims and
found them to be without merit. [GN]


AFTERLIFE NETWORK: Memorial Website Could Face Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Franklin, writing for CTV News Calgary, reports that the
team behind a website that republishes memorials for thousands of
Canadian families could be facing legal action from those who
don't want their loved ones exploited for personal profit.

Afterlife has been drawing a lot of attention because of its
business model where it reposts information about the deceased
relatives of thousands of families across the country without
getting permission first.

The site says it has over one million obituaries on its website
from all over North America, but many of the people that CTV
Calgary spoke to say that that information was obtained without
their knowledge.

Organizers say the online postings are free of charge, but it
offers people to send flowers to a family or buy them a memorial
item like a digital candle. The money from those purchases is
then collected by the website.

Many people say the tactics used by Afterlife are infuriating
because the company is using their loved ones to make money and
the information they share is often wrong.

"It's a violation and it's capitalizing on my pain and my
family's pain," says Lea Stevenson, a woman who found her
brother's obituary on the site. "It's wrong on so many levels,
it's hard to describe."

Sandra Wilson found her daughter's posting on the site too and
says it's just brought her more pain.

"It was like getting hit in the stomach all over again and brings
back the pain. It was horrible. To me, it was trolling and
stealing information they shouldn't have. They had no right to
post that."

A lawyer in St. John's is now moving ahead with a class-action
lawsuit against Afterlife, accusing the site's owners of
violating copyright laws by reposting obituaries without
permission.

Afterlife would not comment on the pending legal action but said
that anyone who doesn't want their loved one's obituary on their
server simply needs to ask. [GN]


AFTERLIFE NETWORK: Lawsuit Alleges Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that a lawyer in Newfoundland and Labrador is
bringing a class-action suit against a website that collects
obituaries and reposts them.

The statement of claim, which has not been proven in court,
alleges that the site managed by Afterlife Network Inc. contains
hundreds of thousands of obituaries and photographs copied
without permission from the websites of Canadian funeral homes
and newspapers.

The Jan. 11 document says the reproductions infringe copyright,
and that Afterlife hasn't sought permission from the copyright
holders.

Lawyer Erin Best, Esq. -- ebest@stewartmckelvey.com -- is
attempting to certify the lawsuit before the Federal Court of
Canada.

The action says the website generates revenues by displaying the
advertising of third party businesses and by permitting users to
"light virtual candles and send flowers."

A spokesperson for Afterlife was not immediately available for
comment, but the company has previously said that it will edit or
delete information from the site on request. [GN]


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fitzroy Powell filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Fitzroy Powell v. Aldous & Associates, PLLC,
Case No. 2-17-cv-03770, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against Aldous and Associates on May 25,
2017.

Aldous provides debt collection services.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Fitzroy Powell v. Aldous &
Associates, PLLC, Case No. 18-1063, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FITZROY POWELL, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, is represented by:

          Aleksander P. Powietrzynski, Esq.
          WINSTON & WINSTON P.C.
          750 Third Avenue, Suite 978
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 922-9483
          Facsimile: (212) 532-2722
          E-mail: alex@winstonandwinston.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on Jan. 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AMC) ("AMC"
or the "Company") securities during the period between December
20, 2016 and August 1, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including purchasers in the Company's secondary public offering
on or about February 8, 2017.  Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until March 13, 2018
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in AMC securities during the Class Period.  Members of
the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by
virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose in connection with
the SPO and during the Class Period that the Company's Carmike
Cinemas, Inc.'s ("Carmike") operations had been experiencing a
prolonged period of financial underperformance due to a
protracted period of underinvestment in its theaters, that
Carmike had experienced a significant loss in market share when
its loyal patrons migrated to competitors that had renovated and
upgraded their theaters, that AMC was able to retain only a very
small number of Carmike's loyalty program members after the
Carmike acquisition, and that these issues were then having a
material adverse effect on Carmike's operations and theater
attendance.

According to the complaint, following an August 1, 2017
announcement of its preliminary second quarter 2017 financial
results, the value of AMC shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in AMC securities purchased on or after December 20, 2016 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: Car Owner Wins Exploding Sunroof Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Plungis, writing for Consumer Reports, that Aaron Dunifon
was driving his family of four home to Ohio from vacation last
June in their 2015 Honda Odyssey when they were surprised by a
loud "pop."  The sunroof glass had shattered for no apparent
reason, Mr. Dunifon says.  Although nobody was hurt, it was
alarming.

Since the car was still under warranty, Mr. Duniform says he
tried to get his local Honda dealership to assume the cost of
replacement, roughly $500. The dealership refused.

Mr. Dunifon, 36, of Miamisburg, Ohio, had an advantage most
consumers don't enjoy when they're confronted with this
unexpected issue.  His father is a retired automotive glass
engineer who had witnessed similar spontaneous breakage at glass
plants where he worked.

"I started reading up on this and the more we read, the more we
realized that this thing just exploded," Mr. Dunifon says.  So he
tapped into his father's experience, did some online research,
and started building a case, which he filed against the company
in small claims court, for a fee of $50.

Aaron reached out to Consumer Reports after he read our October
12, 2017 investigation into exploding sunroofs.  It found that an
exploding sunroof isn't such a freak occurrence after all. CR's
analysis of a federal consumer complaint database identified
nearly 900 incidents spanning 208 models and 35 brands, which
almost certainly underestimates the true incidence of the
problem, since most people never file complaints.

About the same time that Mr. Dunifon's small claims case was
moving forward, several larger class action lawsuits involving
exploding sunroofs, including one in California against the
automaker Hyundai, were advancing through the legal system.

Hyundai's number of shattering incidents stood out in CR's
earlier analysis of federal consumer complaints, as did the
number for automaker Kia.  After Consumer Reports' investigation
was published, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
released some new data from additional automakers, which the car
companies had provided to NHTSA as part of the agency's ongoing
four-year sunroof defect investigation into the Kia Sorento
(model years 2011-2013).

CR's analysis of NHTSA's new but still limited industry data
underscores our original findings.  It shows that while several
automakers tended to have more sunroof shattering incidents than
would be indicated by their overall market share, the two Korean
automakers stood out, with shattering rates significantly higher
than other car companies.

"The more data we see, the more widespread the problem looks,
especially for Hyundai and Kia owners," says William Wallace,
policy analyst for Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization
division of Consumer Reports.  "Automakers should stop wasting
time and money fighting consumers in court.  Instead, they should
recall defective sunroofs and work together to establish stronger
safety standards so consumers won't have to face this problem."

Small Claims Drama
When Mr. Dunifon's case was filed, a certified letter of notice
went out to Honda's U.S. subsidiary, American Honda Motor Co.
Before the November court date, Honda offered to settle for half
of the repair costs, Mr. Dunifon says.  He refused, and the case
continued.

Once in court, according to Mr. Dunifon, the judge explained to
the lone Honda representative present, a glass engineer, that
because Honda hadn't sent a lawyer, the company's defense options
were limited.  They could present their own case, but could not
dispute Mr. Dunifon's account of what happened to his car, or
cross-examine him.  According to Mr. Dunifon, the judge asked the
Honda representative if he still wanted to proceed, and the
engineer said he did. (CR asked Honda for the name of the
engineer who appeared in court, but the automaker declined to
provide it.)

Mr. Dunifon says he explained his case, going through 107 pages
of exhibits he had compiled, including CR's investigation.  When
the judge asked why he didn't file an insurance claim,
Mr. Dunifon explained that he wanted Honda to honor its warranty.
The judge also asked if there had been vehicles around or if they
had passed under things such as bridges or overpasses -- factors
that could produce flying road debris.  Mr. Dunifon said no.

Honda's presentation in court, which Mr. Dunifon later shared
with CR, included six pages of exhibits.  In one document, the
company said it had reviewed Mr. Dunifon's repair history with
the dealership and the district parts manager.  "Every inspection
did not yield evidence of a defect in workmanship or material
from the manufacturer," Honda said.  Since its warranty only
covers damaged glass caused by a defect in material or
workmanship, Honda said it concluded the repair wasn't covered by
the warranty.

Typically, there isn't a formal record of proceedings in small
claims courts.  As a result, CR relied on Mr. Dunifon's account
and court records, and when possible, tried to confirm facts with
Honda.

Honda told CR that while it couldn't comment on specifics of the
case, if the company determined an individual glass breakage was
caused by a defect, it would "promptly honor its obligations
under the limited warranty."  It also noted that the 2015
Odyssey's sunroof is a conventional design, not one of the newer,
larger, so-called panoramic sunroofs.

And lastly, the company said that while a vehicle owner may
dispute the findings of a dealer or Honda representative, "Honda
must make decisions based on observable facts, not opinions or
conjecture.  Regardless of vehicle brand, the vast majority of
on-road glass breakage occurs due to damage from road debris. As
with other types of vehicle damage, if there is no evidence of a
defect, the best course of action for a consumer is to file an
insurance claim."

Honda was one of 13 manufacturers asked to turn over some of its
sunroof shattering data to NHTSA.  In our analysis, it had the
second-lowest rate of shatterings, behind only Volvo, which
reported none.

The judge ruled on the spot, in Mr. Dunifon's favor, ordering
Honda to pay $597.67, the cost of repair plus court costs.

"They wasted a lot of my time," Mr. Dunifon says. "If they would
have just fixed it, they would have saved a lot of money."

California Class Action Against Hyundai
Automakers are being challenged in more than just small claims
courts.

The California case against Hyundai, scheduled for August in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is
believed to be the furthest along of about a dozen developing
class actions involving exploding sunroofs.

Generally, the sunroof class action suits assert that automakers
are failing to protect vehicle owners, knowingly selling vehicles
with safety defects, and not honoring warranties.  CR has found
records of class action lawsuits against automakers such as
Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen, among
others.

In its official response to the court case, Hyundai denies that
its sunroofs have a defect or that it has "failed to warn drivers
of any alleged danger."

In the Hyundai case, consumers are seeking reimbursement for
repair costs and compensation for the diminished value of their
vehicles.  According to the complaint, consumers thought they
were buying a car free of safety defects.

The biggest consumer benefit from a possible class action victory
would be the potential for a court order or an agreement that
might compel Hyundai or the other automakers to admit liability,
to fix cars for all affected consumers, and to come up with a
safer design, says Jason Levine, executive director of the Center
for Auto Safety, a Washington-based watchdog group.

"If you want to make a larger point that will change the course
of what a manufacturer's going to do, a class action might be
better," Mr. Levine says.  "A successful class action frequently
leads to changes in behavior."  The industry is not acknowledging
there's a problem, Mr. Levine says.  "We want to see more
aggressiveness from NHTSA, but it can't all be on their backs."

As is its practice, the federal safety agency declined to discuss
the timetable for the culmination of the Sorrento defect
investigation, which NHTSA started in 2013, saying only that it
takes a proactive approach to safety and "its investigation is
ongoing."  And "NHTSA encourages the public to contact us if they
have any information or concerns regarding their sunroof through
NHTSA.gov or by calling (888) 327-4236."

When NHTSA reaches a final determination, it will likely either
issue a recall or close the case without taking action. [GN]


APPLE INC: Four More Class Actions Over Throttling Defect Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that another four class actions have been
filed against Apple for product obsolescence. The one lawsuit
focused on in this report is one from San Francisco, California,
filed by 29 individuals who are demanding $5 Billion. The
plaintiffs note in their filing that "Apple surreptitiously
throttled the processor speeds of iPhones to mask the
manifestation of sudden shutdowns that iPhones with degraded
batteries were experiencing. Plaintiffs hereinafter refer to this
surreptitious throttling -- and its causes and impacts -- as the
"throttling defect." The San Francisco lawsuit alone lays out a
whopping 27 counts / causes of actions against Apple. The other
three class actions listed in this report were originally filed
in New Jersey and California. The official Class Action count
against Apple is now 48 with at least 5 foreign filings pending.

Causes for Action

Count 1: BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 2: VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT

Count 3: VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT

Count 4: TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

Count 5: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Count 6: VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR PRONG OF VARIOUS STATES' UNFAIR
AND

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES STATUTES

Count 7: VIOLATION OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 8: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 9: VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

Count 10: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPUTER CRIME LAW,

Count 11: VIOLATION OF ALABAMA'S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Count 12: VIOLATION OF ARIZONA'S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

Count 13: VIOLATION OF ARKANSAS' DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Count 14: VIOLATION OF HAWAII'S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Count 15: VIOLATION OF HAWAII'S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Count 16: 13    VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTION PRONG OF ILLINOIS
CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACT

Count 17: MARYLAND BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 18: (VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTION PRONG OF THE MARYLAND
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Count 19: VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR PRONG OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT

Count 20: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ("MCPA"), (MICHIGAN COMP. LAWS

Count 21: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 22: DECEPTIVE CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE OHIO CONSUMER
SALES PRACTICES ACT

Count 23: VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

Count 24: VIOLATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE

Count 25: TEXAS BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 26: VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Count 27: VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA'S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT [GN]


APPLE INC: "Gilson" Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00216, (N.D. Cal. Super., January 10, 2018), seeks monetary
damages, including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental,
and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and
costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of
these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however users still complained of slow
devices.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Esq.
      Tamarah P. Prevost, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
             jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             ggiblin@cpmlegal.com
             tprevost@cpmlegal.com


APPLE INC: Attorney Files Motion for Preliminary Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
USA Today reports that lawyers are still circling Apple and its
"batterygate" issues.

On Jan. 16, an attorney behind one of the proposed class-action
lawsuits against Apple over batteries in its older iPhones filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Northern District of
California that seeks to recoup the older batteries Apple swaps
out.

To rewind: at the end of the year, Apple admitted that it slowed
down older iPhones to keep up with declining battery usage,
apologized to the public, and said it would offer replacement
batteries at a cost of $29.99, a $50 discount from the normal
price.

But law firms had already started to sue the company on behalf of
consumers who owned the older iPhones, alleging breach of
contract because, they said, they never consented to allow Apple
to slow their older iPhones.

The Jan. 16 motion was filed because lawyer Adam Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- of DiCello Levitt & Casey, said he needs
to "maintain and preserve any data it collects through diagnostic
testing in order to protect the claims of all affected
consumers."

"Given the ever-changing nature of Apple's battery replacement
program and the critical importance of that diagnostic data to
this lawsuit, Apple should be required to preserve that data and
produce it to Plaintiff's counsel," said Mr. Levitt in a
statement.

Mr. Levitt says he filed the injunction because he needs more
information to prosecute his case, which charges Apple deceived
many of its customers into buying brand new iPhones by rolling
out its iOS throttling software, causing them material financial
damages.

"Apple has a policy of getting rid of batteries it pulls out of
phones, and we want the diagnostics.  We want to make sure
everything is preserved," he said in an interview with USA TODAY,

The lawyer insists that he's not trying to stop Apple from
replacing batteries for consumers.

Apple began offering battery updates earlier this month and has a
website set up for battery replacement. But beyond saying that
batteries for the iPhone 6, 6 Plus and 6S Plus were in "limited
supply," the company is not offering timing on how long it will
take to replace the battery.  What Apple is doing is scheduling
Genius Bar appointments to bring the phone to have the battery
replaced.

For Apple, this is an issue that just won't go away.  According
to Reuters, consumer groups in both France and China have begun
investigations into Batterygate, and Tech Radar has tallied some
45 consumer lawsuits so far.

Apple didn't respond to requests for comment. [GN]


ASCENSION HEALTH: $29.5-Mil. Settlement in Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Culture reported that last June, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that retirement plans of religiously affiliated health care
systems qualify as "church plans" exempt from ERISA.  Now a
settlement has been approved by an Illinois federal district
court in a class action suit against Ascension, the largest
Catholic health care system in the country. The suit was one of
many that challenged the availability of the  church plan
exemption.  As reported by Cook County Record:

Under the deal, Ascension agreed to pay $29.5 million into a
trust fund, and agreed to not reduce any retiree accrued benefits
for at least the next seven years, and provide various annual
plan notices, "equitable provisions that mimic certain
provisions" of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to a memorandum filed by plaintiffs in support of
the settlement.
However, the deal would allow Ascension to buy out its full
obligation, by contributing $25 million to the trust fund. [GN]


ATKINS NUTRITIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Fernandez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part Atkins' motion to dismiss the case, CHERYL FERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ATKINS NUTRITIONALS, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants., Case No. 3:17-cv-01628-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

In the putative class action, Fernandez claims that Atkins
misleadingly labels its snack products with regard to their "net"
carbohydrate content.  Atkins is a company formed by Dr. Robert
Atkins to promote the sale of books and food items related to the
'Atkins Diet,' a low to no carbohydrate diet.  The Atkins Diet
instructs adherents to limit their intake of carbohydrates that
impact their blood sugar level.  On its product labels, Atkins
often refers to a unit of measurement called "net carbs."

At issue in the case is Atkins's placement of "net carb"
calculations on the outer labeling of its snack products.
Fernandez alleges that Atkins's method of calculating net carbs
conflicts with the method espoused by Dr. Atkins in his books
because Dr. Atkins had written in the past that only fiber should
be deducted from the calculation of net carbohydrates, not sugar
alcohols.  According to Fernandez, no independent scientist,
doctor, or researcher agrees with Atkins's assertion that
maltitol and other sugar alcohols have a net energy value of
zero.  She alleges that Atkins conceals this fact from consumers,
and does not disclose this fact in its labeling or
representations to consumers.

Fernandez thus asserts that the term "net carbs," as used by
Atkins on its products, is misleading.  According to Fernandez,
the FDA has not regulated the phrase, but has noted in warning
letters that the phrase may be misleading to consumers.

Fernandez's complaint asserts the following claims: (i) violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) violation
of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) breach of an
express warranty in violation of Cal. Com. Code Section 2313; (4)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in violation of
Cal. Com. Code Section 2314; and (5) violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA").  Atkins moves to dismiss Fernandez's
complaint.

Because "net carbs" is a configuration of nutrients "of the type"
required to be mentioned on a label by Section 343(q) and its
regulations, Judge Curiel finds that Atkins's net carbs claims
are nutrient content claims governed by Section 343(r)(1).  He
also finds that federal law does not preempt Fernandez's state
law claims, but only to the extent that they are based on
Atkins's failure to indicate on its labels how it calculates net
carbs.  Federal law does preempt any state law requirement that
prescribes a particular method of calculating net carb.  And
because Fernandez's claims present neither a question of first
impression for the FDA nor an issue requiring the FDA's
specialized expertise, the Judge declines to invoke the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.

In addition, the Judge finds that the allegations in Fernandez's
complaint satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth in
Rule 9(b).  However, he finds that by failing to point to a
verifiable affirmation on Atkins's labels, Fernandez does not
plausibly state a claim for a breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Fernandez's implied-warranty based MMWA claim similarly fails.
Judge Curiel holds that Fernandez's complaint fails to state a
claim for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
under California law.  As a result, she has not stated a
plausible claim that Atkins has violated the MMWA by breaching an
implied warranty of merchantability.  And because her complaint
does not allege an actual or imminent risk of future harm,
Fernandez lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief in the case.

For the reasons, Judge Curiel granted in part and denied in part
Atkins' motion to dismiss.  He dismissed without prejudice
Fernandez's claim of breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability under California law and MMWA claims.  Fernandez
may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies no
later than 21 days after the date of the Order's issuance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AIB4mn from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Fernandez, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Ruth
Rosenthal -- drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy &
Matthew L. Dameron -- matt@williamsdirks.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, pro hac vice.

Atkins Nutritionals, INC., Defendant, represented by Grant J.
Ankrom -- grant.ankrom@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac
vice, Gregory Wolf -- gregory.wolf@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael J. Duvall -- michael.duvall@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Galvan" Sues Over Unreversed Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Josefa and Domingo Galvan, individually and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00200 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2018),
seeks damages, equitable relief and/or disgorgement under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Bank of America is accused of improperly assessing its customers
charges for garnishing funds in its customer accounts when a
garnishment is reversed or dissolved. On March 24, 2017,
Plaintiffs' savings account was garnished, through proceedings
filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. A
garnishment was placed against funds in the account, in the
amount of $958.65 including a "Legal Order Fee" in the amount of
$125.00, in connection with the garnishment. The Circuit Court
entered an order reversing and dissolving the garnishment on
April 19, 2017 but the Galvans were never credited back the said
amount, says the complaint.

Bank of America provides financial products and services
including checking and savings accounts throughout the United
States. Plaintiffs have held a savings account with said bank for
several years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 789-9700

             - and -

      Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
      GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 546-5056


BANK OF AMERICA: $408.5-Mil. Settlement in ISDAFix Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is to alert Settlement Class Members to proposed
settlements reached with Defendants Bank of America, N.A.;
Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Inc.;
Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch; Deutsche Bank AG; The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.;
Royal Bank of Scotland PLC; and UBS AG (collectively, "Settling
Defendants") in a class action against the Settling Defendants
and B.N.P. Paribas SA, ICAP Capital Markets LLC, Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("Non-Settling Defendants," and together with the
Settling Defendants, "Defendants"). The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants engaged in anticompetitive acts that affected the
market for ISDAfix Instruments in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. The lawsuit also alleges that
Defendants were unjustly enriched under common law and breached
ISDA Master Agreements. The lawsuit was brought by, and on behalf
of, certain persons or entities (together, "Persons") who
transacted in ISDAfix Instruments. The Defendants deny doing
anything wrong.

For the purposes of these settlements, "ISDAfix Instrument" means
(i) any and all interest rate derivatives, including but not
limited to any swaps, swap spreads, swap futures, variance swaps,
volatility swaps, range accrual swaps, constant maturity swaps,
constant maturity swap options, digital options, cash-settled
swaptions, physically-settled swaptions, swapnote futures, cash-
settled swap futures, steepeners, flatteners, inverse floaters,
snowballs, interest rate-linked structured notes, and digital and
callable range accrual notes, where denominated in USD or related
to USD interest rates, and (ii) any financial instruments,
products, or transactions related in any way to any USD ISDAfix
Benchmark Rates, including but not limited to any instruments,
products, or transactions that reference ISDAfix Benchmark Rates
and any instruments, products, or transactions relevant to the
determination or calculation of ISDAfix Benchmark Rates.

Settlements have been reached with the ten Settling Defendants.
The lawsuit continues against the five Non-Settling Defendants.
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay $408.5 million (the
"Settlement Fund"). The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("Court") authorized this notice.
Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a hearing to decide
whether to approve the settlements. Approval of these settlements
by the Court will resolve this lawsuit in its entirety with
respect to the Settling Defendants.

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class includes all
Persons who, from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2014,
entered into, received or made payments on, settled, terminated,
transacted in, or held an ISDAfix Instrument, as defined above.

For anyone unsure if they are a Settlement Class Member, more
information, including a detailed notice, is available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com, or by calling 1-844-789-6862
(U.S.), or +1-503-597-5526 (Int.).

Settlement Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement
Class will be eligible to file a proof of Claim Form. The amount
of the payment will be determined by a Plan of Distribution.
Details about the Plan of Distribution are available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com. A date for distribution of
the Settlement Fund has not been set.  Proof of Claim Forms must
be submitted by July 16, 2018.

Settlement Class Members who do not opt out will release certain
legal rights against the Settling Defendants and the Released
Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and settlement
agreements, available at www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com.
Settlement Class Members who do not want to take part in the
proposed settlements must opt out by April 30, 2018.

Settlement Class Members may, but do not have to, comment on or
object to the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, or
Class Counsel's application to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards to the Class
Plaintiffs for representing the Settlement Class. To do so,
Settlement Class Members must file their comments or objections
by April 30, 2018.

Information on how to opt out, or file comments or objections, is
in the detailed notice available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com

The Court will hold a hearing on May 30, 2018, at 3:30 pm, at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, Courtroom 1105, New York, New York 10007 to consider
whether to approve the proposed settlements, the Plan of
Distribution, and Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards to the Class
Plaintiffs. Settlement Class Members or their lawyers may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense, but do not
have to.

The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the
Settlement Class in this lawsuit:

     Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
     Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
     51 Madison Avenue
     22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Email: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

        -- and --

     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101

        -- and --

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101

The case is Alaska Electrical Pension Fund vs. Bank of America,
N.A., Lead Case No.: 14-cv-7126 (JMF). [GN]


BAZAARVOICE INC: "Harris" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bazaarvoice, Inc., Gene Austin, Craig A.
Barbarosh, Krista Berry, Steve H. Berkowitz, Thomas J. Meredith,
Jeffrey Hawn, Allison Wing, BV Parent, LLC, BV Merger Sub, Inc.
and Marlin Equity Partners, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00022,
(W.D. Tex., January 10, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the proposed merger between Bazaarvoice
and certain affiliates of Marlin Equity Partners, rescinding it
and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff also seeks costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Bazaarvoice shareholders stand to receive $5.50 in cash and stock
for each share of Bazaarvoice stock they own for a total value of
approximately $521 million.

Plaintiff claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate
in light of the company's recent financial performance and
prospects for future growth and that documents filed omits
detailed line items of the financial metrics of adjusted
earnings, free cash flow and unlevered free cash flows.

Bazaarvoice develops software solutions for the retail,
manufacturing, finance, pharmaceutical, travel and media
industries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720

             - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
      821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
      Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


BURGER KING: Court Dismisses "Tarr" FACTA Suit
----------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, ANDREW TARR,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, d/b/a BURGER KING,
Defendant, Case No. 17-23776-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.).

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act prohibits merchants
from printing more than the last five digits of the credit or
debit] card number or the expiration date upon any receipt
provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction.
According to Tan, Burger King systematically and willfully
violated the Act by printing the first six and last four digits
of his -- and other customers' -- credit and debit card account
numbers on transaction receipts.  He contends that, under Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, his allegations establish a particularized and
concrete injury in fact.

Burger King filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.  It points out that
Tan does not claim his identity was stolen or that fraudulent
purchases were made using his debit card, adding that he fails to
identify anyone who viewed the discarded receipts.  As such,
Burger King argues that Tarr lacks standing because his claims
under the Act "are based solely on statutory violations divorced
from any concrete or actual harm -- i.e., that Tan has failed to
plead the requisite concrete injury in fact.

Judge Moreno holds that Tarr's allegations fail to connect the
alleged statutory violations with any concrete injury.  His
Complaint indicates that he suffered no harm from Burger King's
failure to truncate the first six digits of his credit card
account number on his receipt.  And Tan has not alleged facts
suggesting Burger King's violation created an appreciable risk of
harm.  Consequently, he has failed to establish a concrete injury
in fact sufficient to confer standing.  Because Tarr lacks
standing, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
case. Accordingly, Judge Moreno granted Burger King's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3OVBOJ from Leagle.com.

Andrew D. Tarr, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr. --
blusskin@lusskinlaw.com -- Bret Lusskin, P.A., Keith James Keogh
-- Keith@Keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, Ltd., Scott David Owens --
scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. & Sean Martin Holas
-- sean@scottdowens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A.

Burger King Corporation, Miami, FL doing business as Burger King,
Defendant, represented by Jeremy Marc White -- jmwhite@mwe.com --
McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, pro hac vice, Kerry Alan Scanlon --
kscanlon@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, pro hac vice,
Anthony Nolan Upshaw -- aupshaw@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery
& Justin Brian Uhlemann -- juhlemann@mwe.com -- McDermott Will &
Emery LLP.


CAMPBELL COUNTY, KY: Summary Judgment in "Coleman" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLIE COLEMAN, JOHN P. ROTH JR. AND ERIK HERMES,
Appellants, v. CAMPBELL COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Appellee, Case No. 2016-CA-001642-MR (Ky. App.), Judge Denise
Clayton of Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Campbell
Circuit Court's orders granting summary judgment to the Board and
denying the Taxpayers' motion to amend, alter or vacate.

Coleman, Roth and Hermes ("Taxpayers") bring the appeal from the
Campbell Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to the Board.
The primary issue is whether the holding of an opinion of the
Court of Appeals, which harmonized statutes relating to public
library ad valorem tax rates, is to be applied retroactively or
prospectively only.

In Campbell Cty. Library Bd. of Trustees v. Coleman, a panel of
the Court addressed whether public libraries in Kentucky, created
by petition pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 173.710
et seq., should assess the library's ad valorem tax rate in
accordance with KRS 132.023 or KRS 173.790.  The underlying class
action, brought by a group of taxpayers in the Campbell Circuit
Court, sought recovery of what they maintained were unlawfully
excessive ad valorem taxes levied by the Campbell County Library
Board.

According to the Taxpayers, the Board had erroneously calculated
its ad valorem rate each year according to the provisions of KRS
132.023, which allows a taxing district to increase revenue from
ad valorem taxes up to four percent without triggering a
reconsideration by the district or voter recall referendum, when
in fact it should have applied KRS 173.790, which only allows an
increase in the tax rate via a petition signed by 51% of duly
qualified voters in the district.

The circuit court entered summary judgment for the Taxpayers,
ruling that the Board is required to comply with KRS 173.790, as
the more specific statute, in setting its annual tax rate.  The
Board appealed.  The Court of Appeals panel reversed the circuit
court and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with
the Opinion.  The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the Taxpayer's
motion for discretionary review.

The Board moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts of
the Taxpayers' complaint.  The Taxpayers filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment.  The circuit court entered an agreed order
limiting briefing solely to the issue of whether the Opinion
should be applied retroactively or prospectively only.

Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order in which
it applied the three-factor test for retroactivity set forth in
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, disapproved of by Harper v. Virginia
Dep't of Taxation, to hold that the Opinion harmonizing KRS
173.790 and KRS 132.023 was intended to be applied prospectively
only.  The Taxpayers filed a motion to amend, alter or vacate the
order.  The motion was denied and the appeal by the Taxpayers
followed.

The Taxpayers raise four arguments: (1) that the circuit court
order is contrary to the Opinion and violates the law-of-the-case
doctrine; (2) federal due process and Kentucky law require the
taxpayers to be provided with meaningful retroactive relief; (3)
the order renders KRS 173.790 ineffective for periods prior to
the Opinion, thereby violating Kentucky's separation of powers
doctrine and; (4) even if prospective-only application was
possible in the case, the circuit court erred in finding it
justified here.

On whether the circuit court's order is contrary to the Opinion
and violates the law-of-the-case doctrine, and whether the Board
waived the issue of prospective-only application, Judge Clayton
holds that the circuit court's action in deciding that the
Opinion was to be applied prospectively only was well within the
scope of its authority and discretion.  Consequently, its order
did not violate the law of the case doctrine.  Furthermore, under
these circumstances, the issue of retroactive applicability was
not waived by the Board because the Opinion left the resolution
of this issue to the circuit court.

On whether federal due process and Kentucky law require the
provision of retroactive relief to the taxpayers, the Judge holds
that the taxes in the case were collected in good faith by the
library districts, in reliance on the advice of the Executive
Branch.  In light of this, she says the case presents one of the
rare occasions when a court is justified in exercising its
discretion to make application of a holding prospective only.

On whether prospective-only application of KRS 173.790 violates
the separation of powers doctrine, Judge Clayton is unable to
find any legal authority in Kentucky to support the Taxpayers'
theory that a prospective-only application of the holding of the
Opinion violates the doctrine of separation of powers by
nullifying the effect of KRS 173.790 for the period preceding the
Opinion, thereby encroaching on the province of the legislature.
She cited Justice Scalia's concurring opinions in James B. Beam
Distilling Co. v. Georgia, which adopted this approach but,
according to Jill E. Fisch in Retroactivity and Legal Change: An
Equilibrium Approach, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1055, 1077 (1997), a
majority of the United States Supreme Court has never expressly
recognized any constitutional limitation on adjudicative
nonretroactivity.  The Judge similarly choose not to recognize
such a limitation on the discretionary powers of Kentucky court.

Finally, on whether the circuit court misapplied the Chevron Oil
factors, thereby working a manifest injustice on the taxpayers,
the Judge holds that even if she accepts the Taxpayers' claim
that retroactive application of the Opinion will impact solely
the Campbell County Library Board and no other, the Board
maintains that that retroactive application would require the
refund of millions of dollars already spent on facilities, books,
staff and other library operations.  Under the circumstances, the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the
evidence and deciding that retroactivity would lead to
substantial inequitable results.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Clayton affirmed the orders of
the Campbell Circuit Court granting summary judgment and denying
motion to amend, alter or vacate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ke4mMh from Leagle.com.

Timothy J. Eifler -- timothy.eifler@skofirm.com -- Stephen A.
Sherman, Louisville, Kentucky, Erica L. Horn, Madonna E.
Schueler, Lexington, Kentucky, Brandon N. Voelker, Fort Mitchell,
Kentucky, Briefs for Appellant.

Jeffrey C. Mando -- JMando@aswdlaw.com -- Louis D. Kelly
Covington -- LKelly@aswdlaw.com -- Kentucky, Brief for Appellee.


CANADA: Alberta Seniors Lose Suit Over Long-Term Care Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Paula Simons, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that a group
of Alberta seniors has lost a lengthy legal fight with the
province over long-term care fees.

The Klein government was within its rights to raise accommodation
charges for long-term care residents in 2003, Court of Queen's
Bench Justice June Ross ruled late on Jan. 16.

"This is very troubling and very sad," said Ruth Adria of Elder
Advocates of Alberta Society, one of the parties that launched
the class-action lawsuit in 2005.  "This will just make things
worse for seniors."

The suit alleged the province was negligent and acted in bad
faith when it hiked accommodation fees for standard and semi-
private rooms by 40 per cent and rates for private rooms by 48
per cent.

A standard room went to $1,205 per month from $853.  The price of
a private room jumped to $1,469 from $991.

Residents had just six-weeks notice.

The lawsuit claimed the province unjustly enriched itself at the
expense of vulnerable seniors, and had violated their Charter
rights.

The case bogged down in legal wrangling for years, with the
province taking the plaintiffs all the way to the Supreme Court,
fighting the certification of the class action.

The plaintiffs eventually won the right to sue.  But that legal
victory proved a Pyrrhic one.

Justice Ross ruled there had been no negligence, no bad faith and
no unjust enrichment.  Nowhere in the law, she wrote, was
province required to demonstrate "a reasonable nexus" between the
fees it charged residents and the actual costs of their
accommodation.  In any event, she found, the fees were not
unreasonable.  And she dismissed the Charter argument, finding no
evidence of discrimination based on age or disability.

"I'm absolutely shocked and disappointed," Ms. Adria said on
hearing the news on Jan. 17.  "I find it difficult to believe."

Currently, she said, long-term care residents in private rooms
pay almost $2,00o month -- $1,992 to be precise -- a fee that
covers room, board, housekeeping and routine building
maintenance.

That's more than twice what residents paid in 2002.

Now, $1,992 a month -- $1,636 for a "standard room" -- may not
seem unreasonable rent, considering it includes meals.

But when you consider the size of the rooms and the quality of
the food? From Ms. Adria's perspective, it's a terrible deal.

And that's the bitter crux of Alberta's long-term care debate.

When we go into hospital, our care is free.  And so is our "room
and board."  When patients move into long-term care, their
medical care is still free.  Their living expenses are not.

That may be quite fair.  After all, seniors who live at home or
in private seniors' residences have to make their rent and
mortgage payments and buy their own food.  And Alberta Health
says Alberta's maximum accommodation charge is the second-lowest
in the country; only Quebec's is less.

The moral dilemma, though, is that patients who go into long-term
care rarely get much say in the matter.

Long-term care homes serve the most frail and medically
compromised. People don't choose to move into such facilities for
the bingo or the buffet.  They have complex health needs or high-
maintenance disabilities.

The average age of a long-term care resident is 87.  Most people,
to be blunt, enter these homes not to live, but to die.

The poorest of residents are subsidized.  The rest, though, must
pay out of their savings or pensions, or ask family members for
money.  For them, those accommodation fees aren't optional.
They're a levy they're forced to pay.

Yet we don't quite have enough long-term care homes, in part
because they're so expensive to build, operate and maintain.

There are 14,745 such beds across Alberta.  That's only 745 more
beds than in 2003, even though our population is aging
dramatically.  A two-month wait for a bed is pretty typical.

Very roughly, one-third of the province's long-term care bed are
operated by AHS or AHS subsidiaries, one-third are in homes run
by not-for-profit groups, and one-third are in for-profit,
privately operated facilities.

Many of those buildings are elderly themselves and coming to end
of their functional lives.  We can't expect not-for-profits and
private companies to build or retrofit facilities if they can't
recover their costs. But nor can we expect the most vulnerable of
seniors to pay the kinds of fees it would take to cover those
costs.

Alberta Health had no comment on Ross's decision and its import.
But we need a new strategy if we want to get quality long-term
care facilities built without sending our oldest and frailest
citizens to the literal poorhouse.

Because aging, and death, are inexorable.

When this class-action was filed in 2005, the "named plaintiff"
was Johanna Darwish, then 95 and living in long-term care in
Edmonton.  After her death, her son, consumer advocate
James Darwish, carried the suit forward in her name.

By the time the case was finally heard, he himself was in long-
term care.  He died last October, without ever knowing what the
court had decided.

Ms. Adria, though, isn't giving up the fight, even if her tactics
are political, not legal, as she confronts a new government.

"You can never let life get you down.  We will keep going forward
and stir the conscience of our society." [GN]


CANADA: May 10 Hearing on Proposed Sixties Scoop Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The representatives of certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop
have reached a proposed settlement agreement with the Federal
Government of Canada that provides compensation for certain
survivors of the Sixties Scoop. The proposed settlement must be
approved by the courts before there is any money or other
benefits available. Your legal rights are affected even if you do
nothing. Please read this notice carefully.

This lawsuit claims that Indian children who were victims of the
Sixties Scoop lost their cultural identity and suffered
psychologically, emotionally, spiritually and physically. They
were also deprived of their status, their aboriginal and treaty
rights and monetary benefits to which they were entitled pursuant
to the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5 and related legislation and
policies.

The representatives of certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop and
Canada have agreed to a proposed settlement. By agreeing to the
proposed settlement, the parties avoid the costs and uncertainty
of a trial and delays in obtaining judgment, and certain
survivors of the Sixties Scoop receive the benefits described in
the proposed settlement agreement. By settling this class action,
the representatives of certain survivors of the Sixties Scoop and
Canada have also been able to create a Foundation to enable
change and reconciliation.

The courts in charge of this case still have to decide whether to
approve the proposed settlement. The courts will hear submissions
about the approval of the proposed settlement on May 10 and 11,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and May 29 and 30,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Toronto, Ontario. Payments and other
benefits will only be made available if the courts approve the
proposed settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be
patient.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

1. Object

Write a letter that includes your name, address and telephone
number and explain why you object to the proposed settlement. You
can use the Objection Form which can be found at
sixtiesscoopsettlement.info. You must mail or email your
Objection Form before April 30, 2018 to: Sixties Scoop Class
Action, c/o Collectiva Class Action Services Inc., 1176 Bishop
Street, suite 208, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2E3 or
sixtiesscoop@collectiva.ca.

2. Go to the Hearing

You can attend at court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on May 10 and
11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. and in Toronto, Ontario on May 29 and 30,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. to voice your concerns.

3. Videoconference into the Hearing

The Courts will consider making special arrangements to permit an
objector who wishes to appear in person, but is not able to, to
appear via videoconferencing at select locations of the Federal
Court. More information about videoconferencing is available at
sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

4. Do Nothing

Give up your right to object to the proposed settlement.

These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them and
more information about the proposed settlement are explained in a
notice available at sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.

More details are in the proposed Settlement Agreement. You can
get a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement at
sixtiesscoopsettlement.info. You can send your questions to
Sixties Scoop Class Action, c/o Collectiva Class Action Services
Inc., 1176 Bishop Street, suite 208, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2E3 or
by email at sixtiesscoop@collectiva.ca. You may also call the
toll free number 1-(844)-287-4270.

This notice was approved by the Federal Court and the Ontario
Superior Court. [GN]


CANADA: Judge Certifies Ottawa Taxi Plate Holders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Willing, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that a judge has
ruled that taxi plate-holders can stand together to fight Ottawa
City Hall and claim that the city's new taxi rules are
discriminatory.

In a written decision released on Jan. 16, Justice Robert Smith
certified a class-action lawsuit by taxi plate holders,
acknowledging that they have common beefs with the city's
vehicle-for-hire bylaw, which has allowed Uber to be street legal
in the capital.

"The goals of access to justice and judicial economy will be both
achieved by proceeding as a class proceeding," the judge wrote.

The statement of claim, which was filed in 2016, has the taxi
plaintiffs asking for $215 million in damages from the city.

The judge heard arguments in 2017 on whether the plate-holders
can proceed with their lawsuit as a class.

The city didn't contest whether the plate holders should be
considered a class but it doesn't agree with the arguments
supporting the actual claim.

Marc Andre Way, the co-owner of Metro Taxi and chief operating
officer of Coventry Connections, and Iskhak Mail are the
representatives of the 768 taxi plate licensees suing the city.
There are 1,188 taxi plates in Ottawa.

Court documents filed after the initial statement of claim raised
the discrimination argument by the taxi plate holders.

The plate-holders have pointed to the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, arguing that the city's new taxi rules are
discriminatory since many are members of minority groups.

The city disputes the plate-holders' discrimination claim.

During the hearing on the class certification, the court heard
that 94 per cent of the plate licensees are members of a
"linguistic minority group," 93 per cent have national or ethnic
origin other than Canadian and 91 per cent were born outside of
Canada.

Since it was a hearing to decide on the class, it wasn't the
judge's job to make a ruling on the merits of the claim, but he
wrote that it's not obvious that the claim for discrimination
won't be successful at trial.

The judge found that plate holders have five common issues: the
alleged negligence by the city in enforcing the bylaw when Uber
showed up in town; the alleged unlawful amendments to the taxi
bylaw; the alleged discrimination against plate holders in
creating the new bylaw; the alleged "unlawful tax" created in the
fees collected under the bylaw; and, assessing the alleged
damages of lost plate values as a whole.

The judge narrowed the members of the class as plate-holders and
taxi brokers who fit those categories on Sept. 1, 2014 (when Uber
arrived in Ottawa) or became a plate-holder or broker between
Sept. 1, 2014 and Sept. 30, 2016 (when Uber became legal in
Ottawa).

The city made big changes to its decades-old taxi bylaw in 2016,
allowing private transportation companies like Uber operate
legally.  The licensing scheme established different regulations
for taxis and private transportation companies.

The changes led to the lawsuit, with cabbies expressing
frustration about the decreasing value of their plates as a
result of the new bylaw allowing private transportation companies
to be licensed by the city. [GN]


CANADA: Ville-Marie Expressway Class Action Settlement Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that between
1998 and 2000, noise from repair work being done on the Ville-
Marie Expressway was so loud, Westmount resident Peter Krantz
could sleep only if he had earplugs in.

The sound of jackhammers breaking concrete was clear enough for
Mr. Krantz to count how many were being used each night.  And
that's only when the so-called "aqua-demolition" machine wasn't
operating, he says, which was so deafening it drowned out the
jackhammers.

One night, he had to sleep in his bathroom -- the only place in
his St-Antoine St. loft that had walls to help block out the
noise.

Now Mr. Krantz and about 12,000 others living near the highway at
the time have until May 28 to claim compensation after a Superior
Court judge recently approved a $3.5 million settlement in a
class action.

The lawsuit was launched in 2001 -- and authorized five years
later -- against the attorney general of Quebec and three
construction firms for exposing residents to excessive noise.

"They basically brought a jet engine into my backyard, turned it
on and let it go for 24 hours a day, seven days a week,"
Mr. Krantz, the lead plaintiff in the class action, said on
Jan. 16.  "It was beyond human endurance."

The law firm behind the lawsuit says individual compensation will
depend on the number of claims.  Estimating between 15 and 30 per
cent of members will file claims, it calculated a family of two
in one of the most affected areas could receive up to $5,560.

Those eligible for compensation need to be tenants or owners
within 350 metres south or 170 metres north of the highway in a
sector between Guy St. and de Carillon Ave.  They also need to
have lived there between May 1 and Dec. 31, 1998, between April
26 and Dec. 15, 1999, or between July 1 and Oct. 16, 2000.

Mr. Krantz, 57, said he feels the compensation is fair, but he
isn't satisfied with the government's response to the class
action.

"Eighteen years in court, is that justice?" he asked.  "Some of
the members I know have died. These people don't even get to
collect."

Mr. Krantz still rents the same loft on St-Antoine that he did in
the late 1990s.  He continues to be affected by construction
noise.

"Fairness would be that the government takes notice of the
problem, pays the residents for the damages caused to them, and
takes care of the situation today," he said.

"Now the government is paying us $3,000 per person, roughly. But
it's not $3,000 I want. I want peace and quiet." [GN]


CF ARCIS: Court Extends Deadline to Reply to "Hart" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEVEN LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and
MICHAEL RALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, and d/b/a
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-
01932 RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
extended the deadline for the Arcis Defendants to respond to the
complaint from Jan. 4, 2018, to Jan. 19, 2018.

On Dec. 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their class action
complaint in King County Superior Court.  The caption listed the
Plaintiffs as Lawrence Hart, Clyde Steven Lewis, James Presti,
and Michael Ralls.

Lewis' name was incorrectly spelled.  His name should have been
listed as "Clyde Stephen Lewis."  The caption should be amended
as follows:

LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEPHEN LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and MICHAEL
RALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC at Snoqualmie Ridge, and d/b/a
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, CF ARCIS X HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a ARCIS
GOLF, ARCIS EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, BLAKE S. WALKER, individually
and on behalf of the marital community of BLAKE S. WALKER and
JANE DOE WALKER, and BRIGHTSTAR GOLF SNOQUALMIE, LLC, Defendants.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the Arcis Defendants removed the case under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453, from the King County
Superior Court to the Court.  Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2)(C),
the Arcis Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is
Jan. 4, 2018.

The Arcis Defendants need additional time to investigate and
respond to the allegations in the complaint, particularly given
the intervening holidays.  As a result, the parties stipulate and
agree to extend the Arcis Defendants' deadline to respond to the
complaint by 15 days, from Jan. 4, 2018, to Jan. 19, 2018.  These
requests will not affect any case deadlines, as the Court has not
yet issued a case schedule.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing Stipulation, Judge Martinez
ordered that the caption will be amended to reflect the correct
spelling of Mr. Lewis', and the deadline for the Arcis Defendants
to respond to the complaint is extended from Jan. 4, 2018, to
Jan. 19, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mKkvwb from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Hart, Clyde Stephen Lewis, James Presti & Michael Ralls,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adrienne McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com --, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
& Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

CF Arcis VII LLC, doing business as The Club at Snoqualmie Ridge,
d/b/a TPC at Snoqualmie Ridge, and d/b/a Snoqualmie Ridge Golf
Club, CF Arcis X Holdings, LLC, doing business as Arcis Golf,
Arcis Equity Partners, LLC & Blake S. Walker, individually and on
behalf of the marital community of Blake S. Walker and Jane Doe
Walker, Defendants, represented by Rebecca J. Francis --
rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stephen M.
Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


CONNECTICUT LOTTERY: Class Action Mulled Over Drawing Blunder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lender, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that the
Connecticut Lottery Corp. held a do-over drawing on Jan. 16 to
partially correct a $1.375 million blunder that happened Jan. 1,
when nearly half of the eligible tickets in the New Year's
Million-Dollar Super Draw game -- 100,000 out of the 214,601 sold
at $10 each -- were excluded from the drawing.

The electronic drawing was conducted without problems by a team
of five people using a random number generator machine at lottery
headquarters at 777 Brook St. in Rocky Hill.

"No anomalies were noted," a member of the drawing team said
repeatedly at each step of the drawing procedure over a period of
just under an hour.

Winning ticket numbers were announced shortly before 1:30 p.m. on
Jan. 16 after final certification of the results was submitted to
Scientific Games, the lottery's vendor, at a separate lottery
office two miles away in Rocky Hill.  The numbers were posted on
the lottery's website for a $1 million top prize, along with 10
winners of $20,000, 50 winners of $1,000, and 1,250 winning
tickets worth $100 each.

In one significant way, the lottery agency "lucked out," so to
speak, on Jan. 16 -- because the million dollar winning ticket
drawn was among the 100,000 excluded in the first drawing:
293148. As angry as lottery players already were after the first
mistake, they would have been even madder if the second winner
was someone who'd already had a chance in the Jan. 1 drawing.

The Jan. 16 drawing will result in a second prize payout of
$1.375 million in the Super Draw game, because the lottery agency
says it will pay the winners in the first, flawed drawing -- for
which winning ticket numbers were posted publicly on the website
before officials realized their mistake.  That means the lottery
will lose money on the game for which ticket sales totaled $2.14
million. Unclaimed prize money is to be used to make up the
difference.

The do-over drawing was held as two state investigations are
already underway into how the error occurred on New Year's Day,
and the lack of any problems on Jan. 16 is still unlikely to
satisfy many of the holders of the 100,000 tickets who were shut
out of a chance in the Jan. 1 drawing.

Many players are unhappy that the makeup drawing included all
214,601 tickets, not just the 100,000 excluded Jan. 1, because
that meant that the 114,601 entered in the Jan. 1 drawing got a
second chance to win -- while the other 100,000 got only this one
shot.

In response to players' complaints, the lottery's interim
CEO/president, Chelsea Turner, said there's no way to fix the
problem perfectly, and that lottery regulations require that all
tickets sold be included in a drawing.  To not include all
214,601 in the second drawing would violate those regulations all
over again and compound the initial error, she said.

However, dozens of players have contacted The Courant to protest
the quasi-public lottery agency's handling of the new drawing.  A
few have talked of trying to initiate a class-action lawsuit.

Others have offered what they believe would be fairer solutions.
For example, one said that the second drawing, or even a third
one after Jan. 16, should include the 100,000 tickets excluded
Jan. 1 plus another 14,601 consecutive ticket numbers above them
(which went unsold).  That would make the odds identical to the
Jan. 1 drawing, and if any of the unsold tickets come up as
winners, the prizes could go to charity, the player said.

The Jan. 16 drawing, just like the one on New Year's Day, was run
by a team of five people -- two of them employees of the lottery,
two from the state Department of Consumer Protection (DCP), which
regulates the lottery agency, and one from the lottery's
independent auditing firm, Marcum LLP.

The five people on the Jan. 16 team were different from those who
ran the Jan. 1 drawing.  Both the lottery agency and DCP are
conducting separate investigations into how the Jan. 1 blunder
happened and who is responsible. Two lottery employees have been
placed on paid administrative leaves, while the two DCP employees
from Jan. 1 have been taking off drawing assignments while the
department investigates its part in the snafu.

Lottery officials will not say if they'll pursue Marcum, a major
national accounting firm with four Connecticut offices, for any
financial responsibility in the Jan. 1 blunder.

Here's what's known so far about that mistake, according to DCP's
communications director, Lora Rae Anderson:

Incorrect numbers were entered into the random number generator
machine by a lottery employee on the team, despite a step-by-
step, illustrated instruction manual emphasizing that ticket
numbers went upward from a low of 100001 -- so the second ticket
would be 100002, the third 100003, and so on.  With, 214,601
tickets sold, the range of eligible tickets should have been
100001 at the low end, and 314,601 at the top.  But the lottery
employee instead entered 214601 as the top number, omitting the
100,000 tickets numbered from 214602 through 314601.

The mistake in the number entries was missed by a DCP employee
and Marcum's representative, who were supposed to observe whether
things were done properly, Ms. Anderson has said.

Meanwhile, DCP's investigation has already run into conflicting
stories about what happened Jan. 1.  "The Department has begun
conducting interviews with parties involved in the Super Draw
drawing that occurred on January 1st, 2018.  At this time, there
are conflicting accounts of that day's events,"
Ms. Anderson said in an email.

Meanwhile, state Rep. Joe Verrengia, D-West Hartford, says that
he may seek another round of investigative hearings into lottery
operations, similar to two hearings he convened last May in his
role as co-chairman of the General Assembly's public safety
committee.

Another effect of the current problem is another delay, for now
and perhaps for weeks, in the hiring of a permanent CEO to
replace Anne Noble, who stepped down in September 2016 during the
DCP's investigation of the 5 Card Cash fraud scheme.  Noble
stayed on until mid-2017 under a lucrative severance/consulting
package, and Turner, her longtime subordinate, has been acting
CEO since then.  Turner is believed to be one of four current
finalists being considered by the lottery's board of directors.
The other three are from out of state. [GN]


CREDIT PAYMENT: Not Liable for Promoter's Alleged TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kane, Esq. -- pkane@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial
court's judgment in favor of several lender defendants in a
putative TCPA class action, ruling that the defendants could not
be vicariously liable under the TCPA for a promoter's text
messages because the promoter was either not the defendants'
agent or the defendants did not have knowledge concerning
material facts about the agent's unlawful activities.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that mere knowledge that an
agent is engaged in an otherwise commonplace marketing activity,
such as text message marketing, would not lead a reasonable
person to investigate whether the agent was engaging in unlawful
activities relating to the text messaging.

A copy of this opinion is available at https://is.gd/y3bWae

Defendants-Appellees of the case are Credit Payment Services
Inc., FKA mycashnow.com Inc.; Enova International, Inc.; pioneer
Financial Services, Inc.; Leadpile, LLC and Click Media, LLC,
DBA ClickMedia, DBA Net1Promotions LLC, DBA Net 1 Promotions,
LLC.

As you may recall, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) makes it "unlawful for any person within the United
States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient
is within the United States: (A) to make any call (other than a
call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone
dialing system . . . (iii) to any . . . cellular telephone
service."  47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), pursuant to its
rulemaking authority under the TCPA, has ruled that "[c]alls
placed by an agent of the telemarketer are treated as if the
telemarketer itself placed the call," In re Rules & Regulations
Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (1995),
and has construed actions under the TCPA "to incorporate federal
common law agency principles of vicarious liability," In re Joint
Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6584
(2013).

On Dec. 6, 2011, the plaintiff received an allegedly unwanted
marketing text message from the promoter.  The promoter had
entered into an agreement with a lead generating company to
provide leads for three lenders.

The plaintiff did not respond to the promoter's text message or
click on the link contained in the text message.  Instead, the
promoter filed a putative class action against the promoter, the
lead generation company, and the three lenders.  The plaintiff
alleged that the lenders and the lead generation company were
vicariously liable under the TCPA for the promoter's text
messages.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders
and the lead generating company.  The trial court rejected the
plaintiff's argument that the lenders and the lead generating
company had ratified the promoter's texting campaign by accepting
leads while knowing that the promoter had used texts to generate
those leads.  The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lenders and the lead
generating company had ratified the promoter's unlawful texting
by accepting the benefits of the text messages while unreasonably
failing to investigate the promoter's texting methods.

The Ninth Circuit first noted that the FCC had relied on the
Restatement (Third) of Agency as the federal common law of
agency.  And, the Restatement defines "ratification" as "the
affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is
given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual
authority."  Restatement (Third) of Agency Sec. 4.01(1).
"Ratification does not occur unless . . . the act is ratifiable
as stated in Sec 4.03."  Id. Sec 4.01(3)(a).  An act is
ratifiable "if the actor acted or purported to act as an agent on
the person's behalf."  Id. Sec 4.03.

The Ninth Circuit also noted that even if a principal ratifies an
agent's act, "[t]he principal is not bound by a ratification made
without knowledge of material facts about the agent's act unless
the principal chose to ratify with awareness that such knowledge
was lacking."  Id. Sec. 4.01 cmt b.

The Ninth Circuit then rejected the plaintiff's argument that the
lenders could be vicariously liable for the promoter's text
messages because the promoter had not entered into any contracts
with the lenders, had not communicated with the lenders, and did
not even know of the lenders' involvement prior to the
plaintiff's lawsuit.

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the trial court's rejection of
the plaintiff's claims against the lead generating company.  The
Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff had not produced any
evidence that the lead generating company had actual knowledge
that the promoter had sent text messages in violation of the
TCPA.  In addition, the Ninth Circuit determined that the
plaintiff had not offered any basis to infer that the promoter
had assumed the risk of lack of knowledge, and did not present
any evidence that the lead generating company "had knowledge of
facts that would have led a reasonable person to investigate
further," but ratified the promoter's acts anyway without
investigation. Id. Sec. 4.06 cmt. d.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the plaintiff's
contention that a reasonable person would investigate whether an
agent was involved in unlawful activities merely because the
agent was engaged in text message marketing. [GN]


CREDIT PAYMENT: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Cheung, Esq. -- tcheung@mofo.com -- and Ben Patterson,
Esq. -- bpatterson@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that in the high-risk Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arena, the Ninth Circuit recently
offered some respite. On January 10, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
limited the potential liability that companies may unknowingly
face for the communication practices of their upstream vendors.
In Kristensen v. Credit Payment Services, Inc., No. 16-15823 (9th
Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for
defendant payday lenders, finding that the lenders were not
vicariously liable for any unlawful text messages sent by a
third-party lead generator.

The TCPA plaintiff had received a text message from a company
called AC Referral, which contained a link to a loan application
website.  AC Referral had contracted with lead generator Click
Media, which in turn sold customer leads to a lead acquisition
company LeadPile.  The defendant lenders had hired LeadPile to
help acquire customer leads for loans. In 2014, the District of
Nevada certified a class of other similar text recipients.  Even
though the defendant lenders had no contact with the text sender,
plaintiff argued that "defendants ratified AC Referral's unlawful
texting by accepting the benefits of the text messages sent by AC
Referral while unreasonably failing to investigate its texting
methods."  Applying principles of agency law, the Ninth Circuit
concluded that the lenders could not be liable under a
ratification theory.  It was "undisputed that AC Referral did not
enter into a contract with any of the lenders or with LeadPile"
and "AC Referral did not communicate with or even know of the
lenders or LeadPile before the lawsuit was filed."  Thus, because
AC Referral never acted as an agent or purported agent of the
defendants, there was no act that could be ratified.

Summary judgment was also affirmed for the defendant intermediary
company Click Media that actually contracted with AC Referral.
Click Media's contract stated that "AC Referral could use text
message marketing and required AC Referral to comply with the
TCPA."  The Ninth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff "presented no
evidence that Click Media had actual knowledge" of the texting
violation and "knowledge that an agent is engaged in an otherwise
commonplace marketing activity [e.g., texting] is not the sort of
red flag that would lead a reasonable person to investigate
whether the agent was engaging in unlawful activities."  This
ruling could reduce litigation risks for companies that are
unaware and have no reason to suspect their vendors are sending
communications that may not be in compliance with the TCPA. [GN]


CYNOSURE INC: Averts False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that Massachusetts
company Cynosure Inc., which manufactures aesthetic laser
machines used in tattoo removal procedures, on Jan. 16 escaped
the bulk of a class action brought against it by clinics who
purchased the lasers, and alleged the products did not live up to
what was represented in advertising materials.

The case, first brought by a single clinic in 2015, had claimed
that Cynosure misstated its FDA clearance and issued misleading
statements about the results of the product to dermatology
clinics to entice them to buy the equipment.

The case is LDGP, LLC v. Cynosure Inc, Case No. 3:15-cv-50148
(N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Frederick
J. Kapala.  The case was filed June 26, 2015. [GN]


DITECH FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended "Scally" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENDALL SCALLY, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 30, 2016, Scally filed the first amended class action
complaint against the Defendant.  She alleged two causes of
action against the Defendant on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"); and (2) violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act").

On Oct. 17, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.  On
Jan. 26, 2017, the Court determined that the Plaintiff's claims
were precluded by the Bankruptcy Code and granted the motion to
dismiss.  It dismissed the first amended complaint without
prejudice.

On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint
and again alleged violations of the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act.

On June 30, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.  On Nov.
21, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.  It determined
that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish
that she had been the object of collection activity arising from
a consumer debt covered by the FDCPA and therefore failed to
state a claim under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act.  The Court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and
granted the Plaintiff 30 days within which to file a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to
File Third Amended Complaint.  On Dec. 19, 2017, the Defendant
filed a response in opposition.  On Dec. 23, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a reply.

The Plaintiff requests leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in
order to clarify that the debt at issue in the case is covered
under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act.  The Defendant contends that
the Court should deny leave to amend as futile because the
proposed amended complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim.

In view of Rule 15(a)'s permissive standard, Judge Hayes says
courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the merits
of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is
granted and the amended pleading is filed.  Accordingly, he
granted the Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.  No
later than 14 days from the date the Order is issued, the
Plaintiff may file the proposed third amended complaint which is
attached to the motion.  If she does not file the third amended
complaint within 14 days, the Court will order the Clerk of Court
to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HFTFQe from Leagle.com.

Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Asil A. Mashiri,
Mashiri Law Firm A Professional Corporation, Babak Semnar --
Bob@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman, LLP &
Jared M. Hartman -- jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- Semnar
& Hartman LLP.

Ditech Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mathew McKenna
Wrenshall -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Perry
Anthony Napolitano -- pnapolitano@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith
LLP, pro hac vice.


DOREL JUVENILE: Judge OKs Suit Over Cosco Car Seats to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a federal
judge has denied a car seat maker's motion to dismiss a class
action against it over allegations the seats were mislabeled as
to the height and weight of the child the seats could
accommodate.

Dorel Juvenile Group Inc. manufactured the Cosco brand car seats.
Dorel's motion to dismiss claimed that "Plaintiffs have failed to
quote any affirmative misrepresentations made by defendants, and
that plaintiffs' characterization of the height and weight
specifications provided by defendant as 'limits' or 'maximums,'
and not guarantees of subjective comfort, which defeats
plaintiffs' claim that those specifications were misleading."

In ruling against Dorel, the Judge James Ostero, of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California wrote Dec.
4, that he "finds this argument unpersuasive, since a 'reasonable
consumer' would believe that his or her child would fit in a car
seat if the child's height and weight was within the ranges
represented by the defendant."

In January 2017, a class action was filed by Arriane Henryhand on
behalf of herself and other parents whose children were either
injured or grew out of the allegedly mislabeled car seats.

Dorel's motion to dismiss the fourth amended class action
complaint was filed Oct. 20. Henryhand and plaintiff Margarita
Quezada opposed the motion. The court found that oral argument
was not necessary and ruled against Dorel without a hearing, the
order to dismiss states.

Dorel's motion to dismiss claimed that "Plaintiffs fail to
adequately allege claims under the Unfair Competition Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act or False Advertising Law, which sound
in fraud, because plaintiffs fail properly to allege that
defendant (1) made an affirmative misrepresentation; (2) had
knowledge that it was misrepresenting anything; or (3) actively
concealed any information it was required to provide; (4)
particularly since that information did not relate to the safety
of the car seats," according to the court's order.

Otero found that the motion to dismiss was invalid because
"Plaintiffs allege reliance because they contend that they would
not have purchased the car seats or they would have paid less
money for the car seats if they were aware of the true height and
weight specifications."

Defendant Dorel makes and sells infant car seats, convertible car
seats and booster car seats. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that
Dorel had deceptively marketed and sold its Cosco Convertible Car
Seats since at least 2012. Plaintiffs also allege that the
products in this class action include the Apt 40 Car Seat and the
Cosco Scenera Next Convertible Car Seat.

Henryhand alleged in her original complaint that she bought a new
Apt 40 seat from Target, an authorized Dorel retailer, in Los
Angeles County in late 2013. She alleged she installed it in the
car according to the instructions provided by Dorel. Henryhand
alleged expected to be able to use the car seat until her
daughter reached 43 inches or 40 pounds, as stated in the car
seats' packaging and instructions manuals.

However, in July 2016, Henryhand alleged she drove from
Northridge, California, to Kingstree, South Carolina, for a
vacation with her daughter, who used the defendant's seat. When
they arrived in South Carolina, she alleged her daughter began
complaining of neck pains.

The complaint states on July 24, 2016, a doctor determined that
her daughter had incurred a large neck abscess and the doctor
felt that it was likely caused by the harness straps of the car
seat. Henryhand's daughter was approximately 34 pounds and 36
inches tall, the complaint states, and she alleges was then
forced to purchase a new car seat for approximately $80, long
before her daughter had reached the maximum height and weight
specifications on the car seat.

The order to dismiss states Quezada purchased a new Apt 40 seat
from Walmart, an authorized Dorel retailer, in Alameda County in
August 2015. The seat was installed in Quezada's car according to
the instructions provided by Dorel. Quezada alleged she expected
to utilize the car seat until her daughter reached 43 inches or
40 pounds, as stated in the car seats' packaging and instructions
manuals.

After approximately five months of use, Quezada alleged her child
outgrew the seat and she had to replace it with a non-Cosco brand
convertible car seat. At that time, her child was 30 inches and
22 pounds.

The original class action was filed because "Plaintiffs allege
that, because of Dorel's height and weight representations,
consumers, like Plaintiffs, purchase the car seats under the
false expectation that the car seats will be suitable for
children until they exceed the height or weight specification, at
which time they would be the appropriate size and age for a
booster seat. However, consumers are forced to purchase a second,
replacement car seat long before the reasonably anticipated
useful-life of the car seat has run," according to the court's
order.

Plaintiffs alleged that Dorel has known about the issues with its
car seats since 2012, because it had access to pre-release
testing data, early consumer complaints, and other internal
sources. [GN]


DORM DELICATESSEN: "Estefes" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Estefes, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dorm Delicatessen Corp. (d/b/a
Heavenly Market) and Deli and Satpal Singh, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-10242, (S.D. N.Y., January 11, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York
Labor Laws and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Dorm Delicatessen Corp. operates as Heavenly Market & Deli
located at 77 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10003 where Estefes was
employed as a cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: kliu@hanglaw.com


EI DUPONT: Two Law Firms Appointed to Oversee GenX Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Pope, writing for stateportpilot.com, reports that
attorneys from two law firms were selected by the courts to
oversee class-action litigation against two companies, DuPont and
Chemours, accused of dumping toxic chemicals into the Cape Fear
River, the source of Brunswick County's drinking water supply.

Ted Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- of the firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Troll and Steve Morrisey of the firm Susman
Godfrey will serve as interim co-lead counsel for the class-
action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of North Carolinians who
claim damages from exposure to GenX and other toxic chemicals in
the state's water supply.

Judge James C. Dever of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina made the appointments for the lawsuits
filed in October 2017. The decision creates an executive
committee for the punitive class, with two master consolidated
complaints to be filed no later than January 31.

Cohen Milstein has offices in seven cities, including Raleigh,
while Susman Godfrey has offices in Houston, Seattle, Los Angeles
and New York.

"For decades, DuPont and Chemours have disregarded the lives and
health of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians by
contaminating their drinking water," said Mr. Leopold in a news
release.  "We look forward to getting justice for the families
who have been harmed by these companies' irresponsible acts, and
we are pleased with the court's ruling selecting Cohen Milstein
and Susman Godfrey as interim co-lead counsel."

Mr. Leopold is also co-lead counsel in a class-action suit
brought by residents of Flint, Michigan, against Gov. Rick
Snyder, 17 local government officials, the City of Flint and a
group of engineering companies over the now-infamous
contamination of the Flint water supply.

"By discharging GenX and other toxic chemicals into the Cape Fear
River, DuPont and Chemours have shown a complete disregard for
the lives, health and property values of North Carolina residents
who depend on the river for their drinking water," said attorney
Steve Morrisey in a news release.  "We recognize that this is a
very important case for the people of this state, and we are
honored that the court has appointed me and Susman Godfrey as
interim co-lead counsel to pursue justice from the defendants."

The class-action lawsuit will seek injunctive relief and monetary
damages for repairs of private property and medical monitoring to
provide health care and other appropriate services for residents
in Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, Bladen and Cumberland counties
who have been or are currently exposed to the contaminated water.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed last year in U.S. District
Court against DuPont and Chemours, one by Supply resident
Roger Morton.  Brunswick County has also filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court against the firms, seeking to recover costs
required to reduce and remove chemicals from the county's water
supply drawn from the Cape Fear so those costs are not borne by
county residents and water customers.

Latest results

Results from Brunswick County's latest water samples taken
December 14 show continued low levels of GenX in the Cape Fear.

Those samples revealed levels of 78.7 parts per trillion in the
county's Northwest Water Treatment Plant's raw water source and
38.6 parts per trillion in the finished water source.

The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services has established
the health goal for exposure to GenX in drinking water at no
higher than 140 parts per trillion.

State funding

The N.C. House of Representatives voted 116-0 to send $2.3-
million to the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality for GenX
research and to purchase technology and hire additional personnel
to detect and identify chemicals in the state's water supply.

House Bill 189 provides one-time funding for a high-resolution
mass spectrometer and additional staff that DEQ secretary Michael
Regan had requested.

However, Senate President Phil Berger announced that he and other
Republican senators do not support the bill and are unlikely to
take any action on the measure until the short session begins
later this year.

"HB 189 leaves North Carolina's taxpayers holding the bag for
expenditures that should be paid for by the companies responsible
for the pollution, fails to give DEQ authority to do anything
they can't already do, and authorizes the purchase of expensive
equipment that the state can already access for free," Mr. Berger
countered in a statement. [GN]


ELBIT IMAGING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. ("EI" or the "Company") on Jan. 17 disclosed
that further to its announcement dated September 27, 2017
regarding the revised settlement with the Plaintiffs as to the
class action #1318/99 (Gadish v. Elscint et. al.) (the
"Settlement"), that the court has given final approval of the
Settlement.

For further information with regards to the class action, please
see Note 13B.(1) of our Annual Consolidated Financial Statements
as of December 31, 2016, filed as part of our 2016 Annual Report
on Form 20-F.

                  About Elbit Imaging Ltd.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. (TASE, NASDAQ: EMITF) operates in the
following principal fields of business: (i) Development of
shopping and entertainment centers in emerging markets; (ii)
Medical industries and devices for (a) research and development,
production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided
focused ultrasound treatment equipment, and (b) development of
stem cell population expansion technologies and stem cell therapy
products for transplantation and regenerative medicine; and (iii)
Land in India designated for sale to residential projects. [GN]


EMILY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Common Law Conversion Claim Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMP DRUG STORES, INC., Plaintiff, v. EMILY
CORPORATION d/b/a DDP MEDICAL SUPPLY, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-
0397-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Camp Drug Stores has filed a two count complaint against Emily
Corp. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") (Count I) and common law conversion (Count II).
Camp Drug Stores alleges in the complaint that, on March 7, 2017
and April 14, 2017, it received unsolicited fax advertisements on
its fax machine.

The faxes allegedly described a promotion for some of Emily
Corp's products.  The Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages
as a result of the unsolicited fax advertisements, including the
loss of paper, toner ink, wasted time, and interruption of its
privacy interests.  It purports to bring its claims as a class
action, alleging that Emily Corp. faxed (the same or similar) fax
advertisements to more than 39 other persons in violation of the
TCPA.

Emily Corp. has moved to dismiss Count II of the complaint,
arguing that: (1) the conversion claim alleged in Count II seeks
to recover damages that are duplicative of the damages Camp Drug
Stores also seeks to recover in Count I; and (2) Camp Drug
Stores' alleged damages under its conversion claim in Count II
are de minimis and therefore not actionable.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that the conversion claim alleged in
Count II seeks redress for the same conduct complained of in
Count I, the transmission of two fax advertisements.  Since there
is only one claim for relief and Camp Drug Stores cannot recover
twice for the same injury, it does not matter if Camp Drug Stores
can prevail on one legal theory or both legal theories alleged in
the complaint.  Nor does it matter if Camp Drug Stores
articulates the different legal theories in separate counts of
the complaint, as Camp Drug Stores is entitled to (but not
required to) plead alternative theories of recovery at this early
stage of the lawsuit.

The Judge notes that the federal rules allow for dismissal for
failure to state a claim but do not provide a basis for striking
individual legal theories. Because a new legal theory is not the
same as a new claim for federal pleading purposes, Count II is
not a new claim and there is nothing to dismiss.  Lastly, he says
a ruling on the applicability of the legal theory is best saved
to the point at which the parties can argue facts, not
allegation.

For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel denied Emily Corp.'s Motion
to Dismiss Count II.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/KwXUIl from Leagle.com.

Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by David M. Oppenheim --
david@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC & Phillip A. Bock --
phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC.

Emily Corporation, d/b/a DDP Medical Supply, Defendant,
represented by Bart T. Murphy -- bart.murphy@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP & Martha D. Wallace Bolton, O'Connor Law Firm.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Amended ERISA Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EXPRESS SCRIPTS/ANTHEM ERISA LITIGATION, Case
No. 16 Civ. 3399 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Defendants' to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
("SAC").

The litigation arises out of the relationship between Anthem, one
of the nation's largest health benefits companies, and ESI, a
pharmacy benefits manager ("PBM"), and the impact of their
transactions on the Plaintiffs, a proposed class of certain
Anthem health plans and individual subscribers to Anthem health
plans who receive prescription drug benefits through ESL.

On May 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against ESL.  On
Sept. 30, 2016, they filed an amended complaint adding Anthem and
Does 1-10 as Defendants.  On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed
the SAC, alleging 17 causes of action.

Specifically, against Anthem, the Subscriber BRISA Sub-Class
and/or the Plan Class have alleged breach of BRISA fiduciary
duties (Claims 3 and 9), prohibited transactions under BRISA
(Claims 4 and 6) and co-fiduciary liability under BRISA (Claim
7).  The Non-BRISA Subscriber Sub-Class has alleged breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Claim 15).  Against ESI,
the Subscriber BRISA Sub-Class and/or the Plan Class have alleged
breach of BRISA fiduciary duties (Claims 1 and 8), prohibited
transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") (Claims 2 and 5), and co-fiduciary liability under
ERISA (Claim 7).  All Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
(Claim 10).  The Non-ERISA Subscriber Sub-Class has alleged
breach of contract (Claim 11), quantum meruit/restitution/unjust
enrichment (Claim 12), and violations of New York's General
Business Laws and similar state consumer protections laws (Claims
13 and 14).  Those plaintiffs have also sought declaratory relief
(Claim 16).  Finally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act ("ACA") Subscriber Sub-Class has alleged violations of the
ACA's anti-discrimination provision (Claim 17).

On April 24, 2017, both Anthem and ESI moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The Plaintiffs
request leave to amend the SAC in the event that the Court
dismisses its claims against ESI and Anthem.

Judge Ramos granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissed the SAC without prejudice.  He finds, among other
things, that (i) the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged
that ESI was a fiduciary with respect to Section 5.6 of the PBM
Agreement; (ii) the fact that ESI earns its compensation by
charging an insurance provider more than it paid to the retail
pharmacy for a given drug (or that exceeded its own pharmacy's
costs) does not transform it into a fiduciary with respect to the
Plaintiffs; (iii) the Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient
facts to support a finding that ESI acted as a fiduciary in its
relevant conduct and their claim against Anthem for liability as
a non-fiduciary party to a prohibited transaction requires ESI to
be an ERISA fiduciary; (iv) the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
predicate acts as required under RICO and grants ESI's motion to
dismiss Claim 10 of the SAC; and (v) the Plaintiffs' claim
against ESI for liability as a non-fiduciary party to a
prohibited transaction requires Anthem to be an ERISA fiduciary.

In addition, because the predicate acts alleged in the SAC are
all connected to misrepresentations from ESI to Anthem, and
because those misrepresentations were plead with insufficient
particularity, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead predicate acts as required under RICO and grants ESI's
motion to dismiss Claim 10 of the SAC.

While the Plaintiffs have already had opportunities to amend the
original complaint, Judge Ramos says none were in the context of
a motion to dismiss decision and the Court has therefore not yet
provided guidance as to how the Plaintiffs' claims may be
adequately made.  Further, the unredacted PBM Agreement was only
made available to the Plaintiffs after it filed the SAC.
Therefore, because there is a possibility that the unredacted PBM
Agreement provides the Plaintiffs with newly available
information that enables them to raise colorable claims based on
the Court's guidance in the Opinion, he dismissed the SAC without
prejudice.

The Judge denied as moot the parties' requests for oral argument
on the motions.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motions.  The Plaintiffs will file their Third
Amended Complaint by Jan. 26, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/rof4Xi from Leagle.com.

John Doe One, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & John Doe Two, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Ko --
dko@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., Gerald Sinclair Flanagan -- jerry@consumerwatchdog.org --
Consumer Watchdog, Jeffrey Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Thomas David Copley --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Alan
Mcquarrie Mansfield -- alan@clgca.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP,
Charles Nicholas Dorman -- ndorman@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley
Kallas LLP, David Steven Preminger --
dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Edith M.
Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP,
Gregory J. Pepe -- gpepe@npmlaw.com -- Neubert, Pepe & Monteith,
P.C., Harvey J. Rosenfield, Consumer Watchdog, Henry Clay Quillen
-- hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP, Jacob
Edward Levy -- jlevy@grayandwhitelaw.com -- Gray & White, Pamela
Pressley -- pam@consumerwatchdog.org -- Consumer Watchdog, Rachel
Morowitz -- rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., Tanya Korkhov -- tkorkhov@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. & Joe R. Whatley, JR. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP.

Brian Corrigan, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Ko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Derek W. Loeser, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., Jeffrey Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Thomas David
Copley, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., David Steven Preminger, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Mark Kevin Gray -- mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com --
Gray & White, Rachel Morowitz, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Tanya
Korkhov, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Joe R. Whatley, JR., Whatley
Kallas LLP.

Stamford Health, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory J. Pepe,
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., Simon I. Allentuch, Neubert, Pepe
& Monteith, P.C & Joe R. Whatley, JR., Whatley Kallas LLP.

Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Derek W.
Loeser, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Rachel Morowitz, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. & Joe R. Whatley, JR., Whatley Kallas LLP.

Karen Burnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Brendan Farrell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Robert Shullich, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiffs,
represented by David J. Ko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Derek W. Loeser, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Jeffrey Lewis, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Thomas David Copley, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
David Steven Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Rachel Morowitz,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Tanya Korkhov, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. &
Joe R. Whatley, JR., Whatley Kallas LLP.

Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Stuart
Corkhill andrewcorkhill@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Asia
Laurel Lenard -- asialenard@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Eric G. Serron eserron@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Gwendolyn P. Renigar --
grenigar@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Jacob J. Waldman
-- jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, Keith H. Forst -- keithforst@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Kelsey M. Rule --
kelseyrule@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Kimberly Eden Carson --
kimberlycarson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Michael Barry Carlinsky --
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Michael John
Lyle --- mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Osvaldo Vazquez -- ovazquez@steptoe.com -- Steptoe
& Johnson, LLP & Paul J. Ondrasik -- pondrasik@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP.

Anthem, Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented by Claudine
Columbres -- ccolumbres@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Glenn
Kurtz , White & Case LLP, James T. Irvin --
jim.irvin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, John D. Martin -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Lucile H. Cohen --
lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Diesel Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defeat Device
--------------------------------------------------------
Len Gamboa, Jeff Retmier, Nikiah Nudell, David Bates, Pete
Petersen, and William Sparks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company,
Robert Bosch GmBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-10106, (E.D. Mich., January 10, 2018), seeks all proper
measures of monetary relief and damages, plus interest,
equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief including
restitution and restitutionary disgorgement, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such
further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty, violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and various state consumer fraud
acts.

According to the complaint, Ford's F-250 and F-350 6.7-liter
Power Stroke diesel vehicles emit levels of nitrogen oxide many
times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum
standards.  The levels set for the vehicles to obtain a
certificate of compliance, which allows them to be sold in the
United States and the vehicles' promised power, fuel economy and
efficiency and towing capacity is obtained only by turning off or
turning down emission controls when the software in these
vehicles senses that they are not in an emissions testing
environment otherwise known as the defeat device.

Ford Motor Company is an automotive company organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in Dearborn, Michigan.

Robert Bosch GmbH is a German multinational engineering and
electronics company headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany. Robert
Bosch GmbH is the parent company of Robert Bosch LLC. Robert
Bosch allegedly manufactured the defeat device. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      E. Powell Miller, Esq
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com

             - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


FOREVER 21: Judge Tosses Sales Tax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
David Hansen, writing for Law360, reports that Forever 21 dodged
a class action on Jan. 16 after a New York federal judge ruled a
putative class was not entitled to discover whether the retailer
had paid collected tax revenue to the state, dismissing their
suit.

Submitting a refund request to the state's tax commission is the
sole remedy that state law avails for consumers, U.S. District
Judge Robert W. Sweet held.  The collection of sales taxes is a
ministerial act, Judge Sweet reasoned, and once collected, a
merchant's duty ends.

The case is Togut v. Forever 21, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05616, (S.D.N.Y.).  The judge is assigned to Robert W. Sweet.
The case was filed July 24, 2017. [GN]


FORTY NINERS: "Nevarez" Pre-Certification Discovery Protocol OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has entered an order
regarding Dec. 14, 2017 joint discovery statement in the case,
ABDUL NEVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL
COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-07013-LHK (SVK)
(N.D. Cal.).

On Dec. 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
on behalf of persons with mobility disabilities and their
companions regarding Levi's Stadium and its related parking
facilities, alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On Oct. 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs served an interrogatory
requesting the Defendants to identify by name, address, telephone
number, and email address all persons who purchased accessible
seating tickets from the Defendants for any event held at Levi's
Stadium on or after July 17, 2014.  Similarly, they served a
request for production seeking all documents stating the identity
of any and all persons who purchased accessible seating tickets
from Defendants for any event held at Levi's Stadium on or after
July 17, 2014, including but not limited to, their name, address,
telephone number, and/or email.

The Defendants objected, inter alia, on the basis that releasing
such information would infringe on the privacy interests of the
putative class members. Through the meet and confer process the
parties have agreed that the Plaintiffs may have a third party
administrator send a notice to individuals regarding the pending
lawsuit and the possible release of certain of their contact
information to the Plaintiffs.  However, the parties disagree
regarding the form of notice that should be sent.  The Plaintiffs
have proposed an "opt-out" notice.  The Defendants contend that
these persons should not be contacted by the Plaintiffs without
first providing their affirmative consent, or "opting in."

Now before the Court is the parties' dispute regarding the
appropriate notice to be given to putative class members prior to
release of their contact information in response to the
Plaintiffs' precertification discovery requests.  Having reviewed
the parties' submission, Magistrate Judge van Keulen granted the
Plaintiffs' request to obtain discovery prior to certification of
the class using the opt-out procedure they outlined.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the customers purchased tickets
to sit in an area visible to the public that makes their mobility
issues readily apparent.  Accessible seating is clearly marked,
and by requesting tickets for such seating, these individuals
have manifested their desire to sit in a public space that will
identify them as persons with disabilities.  Thus, in this
context the putative class members do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the fact that they have a mobility
disability.

To the extent persons who purchased tickets for accessible
seating wish to maintain their privacy, she holds that the opt-
out procedure urged by the Plaintiffs will allow them to do so.
Not only is there a protective order in place in the case, which
is often considered sufficient to protect the privacy interest in
contact information, but the opt-out procedure will allow
individuals to refuse to have their contact information
disclosed, should he or she be concerned about revealing that he
or she has a mobility disability.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs must inform each putative class member
that he or she has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he
or she elects not to talk to counsel, their counsel will
terminate the contact and not contact them again.  Additionally,
any communications must be fair and accurate, and must not be
misleading, intimidating, or coercive.

On balance, the Magistrate Judge finds that the putative class
members' privacy interests as presented will be adequately
protected by and through the procedures outlined.  She ordered
the parties to meet and confer by Jan. 10, 2018, to finalize all
procedures in accordance with her Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GL2M8s from Leagle.com.

Abdul Nevarez & Priscilla Nevarez, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adam Brett Wolf -- awolf@prwlegal.com -- Peiffer Rosca Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane, Andrew Paul Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com --
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Guy Burton Wallace --
gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik --
juhrowczik@gmail.com  -- Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Linda Mary Dardarian -- ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com --
Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Raymond Alexander Wendell --
rwendell@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian Ho, Sarah S.
Colby -- scolby@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns & Catherine M. Cabalo --
ccabalo@prwlegal.com -- Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane.

Sebastian DeFrancesco, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah S. Colby ,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, Andrew Paul Lee ,
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho & Guy Burton Wallace ,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Stadium
Authority & Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC,
Defendants, represented by Alexei Nathan Offill-Klein, Lombardi,
Loper and Conant LLP & Maria M. Lampasona, Lombardi Loper &
Conant, LLP.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
& Ticketmaster L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Gregory F.
Hurley -- ghurley@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton LLP & Michael Chilleen -- mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, City of Santa Clara,
Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Santa Clara Stadium Authority & Forty Niners SC Stadium
Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 3rd party
plaintiffs, represented by Alexei Nathan Offill-Klein --
aoffillklein@llcllp.com -- Lombardi, Loper and Conant LLP & Maria
M. Lampasona -- mlampasona@llcllp.com -- Lombardi Loper & Conant,
LLP.


FRESHPET INC: Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Freshpet, Inc.
(NasdaqGM: FRPT) breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders.
On March 27, 2017, investors filed an amended securities class
action complaint against Freshpet for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that between April 1, 2015 and November 11,
2015, Freshpet officials continually assured investors that the
company was on track to meet its 2015 outlook and fiscal guidance
despite knowing as early as April 2015 that installation of the
company's branded refrigerators would likely be delayed or
removed from several of the company's retail partner locations.
On November 11, 2015, after Freshpet's stock increased upwards of
30% in the previous months based on the company's statements,
Freshpet finally lowered its guidance and admitted to
approximately $2.4 million in lost sales. On this news,
Freshpet's stock fell over 25%. On January 12, 2018, the
Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied Freshpet's motion to dismiss,
paving the way for litigation to proceed.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/freshpet-inc-jan-2018

Freshpet Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Contacts
         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


GATES, NY: Tom Golisano Mulls Class Action Over Property Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Chao, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that
billionaire Paychex founder Tom Golisano is mad and he's not
going to take it any more.

Saying that homeowners in the state have been paying an unfair
share of taxes based on inequitable real estate assessments,
Mr. Golisano pledged to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of
taxpayers against local municipalities.

At a news conference on Jan. 16, Mr. Golisano unveiled the new
website TaxMyPropertyFairly.com for homeowners to join the
lawsuit, especially those who have sold their homes for less than
the assessed value so that they may recover some of their taxes.

"The purpose of the website is to help property owners understand
the assessment process and see what they can do about it,"
Mr. Golisano said.  "And believe me, the local governments have
not made it easy to do something about it."

Mr. Golisano hopes to help the average homeowner with information
to challenge their assessments if they believe it to be wrong.
The current system calls on homeowner to prove they are correct
even if the assessment may be wrong, he said.

Mr. Golisano has spent over six figures in legal fees to fight
what he called unfair assessment but realizes that the average
person cannot do that.  The website is designed to help.

Donna Graham, who owns two properties in Gorham, Ontario County,
said she has successfully fought her assessments through the
challenge process. She said she filed a grievance through the
town and met with an assessor for 15 minutes and was successful
in three different situations without having to pay any legal or
other fees.

Mr. Golisano is hoping that by helping to lower taxes, more
people will stay in upstate New York.  He calls for an overhaul
of the system. Using data to compare assessment versus sale price
in Monroe County, Mr. Golisano showed data noting 29 percent of
properties are overassessed.

"It's not fair for some homeowners to be paying more in property
taxes than the market value of their homes and for others to pay
less," he said.  "The system is not fair if people need to hire
lawyers and consultants to navigate a complex process to
challenge their assessments."

In his personal experience, Mr. Golisano said, homeowners have to
prove their cases and the town always sides with the assessor. He
is calling for uniform certification and training across the
state of town assessors who are appointed to their positions.

Ideally, the town assessor should have background experience in
the marketplace, with real estate understanding of the current
market, said Gates Town Supervisor Mark Assini.  The average
taxable home value in Gates has hovered around $102,000 for the
past three years and the variance in prices between assessment
and actual sale has been around 5 percent, which makes the
assessments fairly accurate, Mr. Assini said.

Mr. Golisano's chart shows that the town of Gates is 48 percent
over assessed and 52 percent under assessed, but Mr. Assini noted
the difference is slight as the sale price is usually within 5
percent of assessed price.

"I welcome the review, but some of the analyses may be a little
flawed," Mr. Assini said.

The main issue why property taxes are so high in New York state
is due to unfunded mandates, Mr. Assini said, adding that 40
percent of the county's budget covers Medicaid costs.

Towns take in the smallest portion in the overall tax bill. In
Gates, town taxes account for 13.3 percent, county taxes account
for 18.6 percent and school taxes account for 58.2 percent of the
tax intake, with an additional 9.9 percent going to services such
as the fire district.

Warren Leisenring, author of How to Lower Your Property Tax
Assessment, noted that tax rates should be adjusted whenever
there is a change in a town's assessment.  While the town may
lower its tax rate to reflect revenue, it does not control county
or school taxes.  Therefore it's important for citizens to attend
the school board meetings after a major town reassessment to
ensure the school district does not absorb the extra tax intake
without adjusting its tax rate, Mr. Leisenring said. [GN]


GOPRO INC: "Dye" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Nathan Dye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gopro, Inc., Nicholas D. Woodman and
Brian T. McGee, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00248 (N.D. Cal.,
January 11, 2018), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

GoPro disclosed that for its fourth quarter 2017, the quarter
completing the all-important 2017 holiday selling season where
analysts had been led to believe GoPro would report sales
exceeding $470 million, GoPro had achieved sales of just $340
million. GoPro also disclosed it was cutting more than one-fifth
of its workforce and exiting the drone market altogether. The
workforce reduction cost GoPro $33 million, mainly in severance
costs.

On this news, the price of GoPro stock declined, falling from a
close of $7.52 per share on January 5, 2018, to trade as low as
$5.04 per share in intraday trading on January 8, 2018, before
closing at $6.56 per share on unusually high trading volume of
more than 59 million shares traded.

GoPro develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras and
accessories. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534
      Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856
      Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com


GOPRO INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors
who purchased GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro") (NASDAQ:GPRO) securities
between August 4, 2017 and January 5, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sb/gopro-inc?wire=2. There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the market prospects for Karma were
untenable due to margin challenges in an extremely competitive
aerial market and a hostile regulatory environment in Europe and
the United States; and (2) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On January 8, 2018, GoPro announced it will reduce its
global workforce by 20% and is exiting the drone market "after
selling its remaining Karma inventory."

If you suffered a loss in GoPro you have until March 12, 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sb/gopro-
inc?wire=2.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.

         Contacts
         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
         Tel: 212-425-1140
         Fax. 866-699-3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


HEALTH CARE: Seeks Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH A. CRAFT; JANE DOE, by her next friend and
parent, ELIZABETH A. CRAFT; BRYAN L. PAUTSCH; MARY DOE, by her
next friend and parent, BRYAN L. PAUTSCH; on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH
CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-5853 (N.D.
Ill.), Plaintiffs Craft and Pautsch, on behalf of their
respective families and all persons similarly situated, and on
behalf of the provisionally certified class, claim that HCSC,
through its application of RTC exclusion, violated fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), including duties to comply with the Paul Wellstone and
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of
2008 ("Parity Act"), incorporated into ERISA.  HCSC stopped
enforcing insurance coverage for mental health treatment in
residential treatment center ("RTC") exclusions in accordance
with the effective date provided in the Final Rules implementing
the Parity Act.  Thereafter, the parties engaged in arms-length
negotiations over a period of months that culminated in the
Settlement Agreement, executed on Aug. 16, 2017.

The Settlement provides for monetary payments to Class Members
whose RTC claims were denied based on RTC exclusions.  As part of
the Settlement, HCSC agreed to create a common fund of $5.25
million.  Under the Plan of Allocation, each Settlement Class
Member will receive a proportionate share of the fund after
agreed deductions, based principally on the number of days for
which he or she (or a covered beneficiary) received mental health
residential treatment during the class period.

The Plaintiffs moved for certification of the proposed class and
preliminary approval of the Settlement on Aug. 18, 2017, which
the Court granted on Sept. 20, 2017.  In the Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court approved the appointment of Dahl Administration,
LLC as the Settlement Administrator.  It provisionally approved
the Settlement Class of all individuals who, on or after July 30,
2011, have been participants in and beneficiaries of an ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plan administered and/or
insured by HCSC that provided coverage for both medical/surgical
conditions and mental health conditions and who had made on their
behalf or on behalf of their beneficiary pre-service and/or post-
service claims for benefits for treatment of mental illness in a
residential treatment center, and for which HCSC issued an
adverse benefit determination denying the claims in whole or in
part based on plan exclusions of coverage for residential
treatment of mental illness.

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, HCSC made an initial
deposit of $25,000 into the Settlement Fund Account on Oct. 2,
2017.  This First Deposit covered costs associated with
implementing the Notice Plan and the Settlement Fund Account, and
related fees and costs incurred by Dahl in administering the
Settlement prior to final approval.  The total cost of Dahl's
administration services, including distribution of settlement
amounts to Class Members, is expected to be approximately $9,692.
HCSC will fund the balance of the Settlement Fund (less the
initial deposit) within 10 business days after Final Judgment.
The Settlement Fund will then be used to fund payments to Class
Members according to the Plan of Allocation, after payment of
attorneys' fees and costs, settlement costs, and Service Awards
in the amounts approved by the Court.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Plaintiffs
respectfully move the Court to enter an Order granting final
approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and all of the
terms and conditions contained therein, and dismissing the matter
with prejudice.  The Defendant does not oppose the relief
requested by the Motion.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees Expenses
and Incentive Awards and accompanying papers on Oct. 20, 2017, in
accordance with the schedule in the Preliminary Approval Order.
They ask that the Court award attorneys' fees and costs to the
Class Counsel equal to 30% of the settlement amount, or $1.575
million; and confirm its preliminary approval of an incentive
award of $15,000 for each of the two Named Plaintiffs.  Dahl's
estimated fees and expenses for the settlement are $9,692.  This
amount includes all settlement administration services performed
to date, settlement administration activities remaining, and
distribution of payments to Settlement Class Members.

A full-text copy of the Plaintiffs' Jan. 5, 2018 Motion is
available at https://is.gd/70ZAM7 from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth A. Craft, Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian
Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro
hac vice, Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder Llp, pro hac vice, George Freeman Galland,
Jr. -- ggalland@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill & Galland, P.C.,
Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
& Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice.

Bryan L. Pautsch, Mary Doe, John Doe, Landis Seger, Plaintiffs,
represented by Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder
Llp, pro hac vice, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Meiram
Bendat, Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice & D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Helen
E. Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brian
Patrick Kavanaugh -- brian.kavanaugh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Catherine Morgan Cottle, Kirkland & Ellis Llp & Devon
McKechan Largio -- devon.largio@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP.




HEALTH INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Moser" TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH J. MOSER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
EMPLOYERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., a Texas corporation; COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation; DONISI JAX, INC., a
Florida corporation; CHARLES DONISI, an individual; EVAN
JAXTHEIMER, an individual; HELPING HAND HEALTH GROUP, INC., a
Florida corporation; ANTHONY MARESCA, an individual; and MATTHEW
HERMAN, an individual; Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-1127-WQH-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (i) denied HII's Motion
to Dismiss and Motion to Strike; (ii) denied Unified's the Motion
to Dismiss; (iii) Unified's Motion to Strike; and granted in and
denied in part Nationwide Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
Motion to Strike.

On June 7, 2017, Moser filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
bringing claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 ("TCPA") against HII; Unified; Nationwide; Charles Donisi;
Evan Jaxtheimer; and five other Defendants.

From April 6, 2017 to May 10, 2017, Moser received 82 calls from
Helping Hand and Nationwide trying to sell HII's bundle of
insurance related services that violated the TCPA.  From April 6,
2017 to May 10, 2017, Nationwide transmitted 32 autodialed and
prerecorded calls to Moser's cellular phones (858-[xxx-xxxx] and
858-[xxx-xxxx]) and residential telephone line (858-[xxx-xxxx]).
These calls all used the exact same prerecorded message and CID
310-[xxx-xxxx] to try to sell HII's bundle of insurance related
services.  All of these Nationwide calls were prerecorded and
autodialed.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action against the Defendants on
behalf of himself and members of the following class of persons
dividing into two sub-classes:

     a. Sub-Class No. 1: All persons and entities located within
the United States of America to whose mobile phone the Defendants
and/or its agents transmitted a call using an automatic telephone
dialing system or prerecorded voice without prior express written
consent from the called party at anytime from Jan. 28, 2015 to
the present, including up to and through trial; and,

     b. Sub-Class No. 2: All persons and entities located within
the United States of America to whose residential telephone line
the Defendants and/or its agents transmitted a call using a
prerecorded voice without prior express written consent from the
called party at anytime from Jan. 28, 2015 to the present,
including up to and through trial.

On June 21, 2017, HII filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike, and Unified filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Strike.  They each move to dismiss Moser's claims against them
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  HII and
Unified move to strike certain allegations in the FAC as well as
certain exhibits attached to the FAC on the grounds that they are
immaterial and impertinent.  Specifically, either HII, Unified,
or both move to strike (1) paragraphs 21 through 34, (2)
paragraphs 68 through 86, and (3) exhibits 2 through 8.

On Aug. 25, 2017, Nationwide, Charles Donisi, and Evan Jaxtheimer
("Nationwide Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike.  They move to dismiss Moser's claims against them for
lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(2).

Judge Hayes denied HII's and Unified's motions to dismiss.  He
finds that Moser has alleged facts, that, when accepted as true,
make it plausible that Nationwide and Helping Hand were acting as
HII's and Unified's agents when they made the Calls.

As to their motions to strike, the Judge declines to strike,
among other things, paragraphs 73 through 75 of the FAC and
Exhibit 5 because they may be relevant to Moser's TCPA claims.
He declines to strike paragraphs 83 through 86 because they may
be relevant to Moser's TCPA claims, particularly the extent of
HII's knowledge of the alleged marketing scheme that included the
Calls.  In sum, the Judge declines to strike paragraphs 21
through 34 and 68 through 86 of the FAC, as well as exhibits 2
through 8.

Judge Hayes concludes that the Court has personal jurisdiction
over Nationwide but not over Donisi and Jaxtheimer.  He finds
that the FAC includes only one allegation that describes Donisi
and Jaxtheimer's involvement with the Nationwide Calls.  Moser
alleges on information and belief that Donisi and Jaxtheimer made
the [Nationwide Calls, ordered them made, knew they were being
made and did nothing, or were willfully and recklessly ignorant
of the fact their company was making them.  The Judge says this
allegation does not contain factual material that would permit
the Court to disregard Nationwide's corporate form and assert
jurisdiction over Donisi and Jaxtheimer as individuals.  Moser
has not fulfilled his burden of establishing that jurisdiction is
proper.

Accordingly, Judge Hayes granted the Motion to Dismiss and Motion
to Strike filed by the Nationwide Defendants as to Moser's claims
against Donisi and Jaxtheimer, and denied in all other respects.
Moser's claims against Donisi and Jaxtheimer are dismissed
without prejudice.  If Moser wishes to file a second amended
complaint, he must file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3QSney from Leagle.com.

Kenneth J. Moser, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Reichman -- chrisr@prato-reichman.com -- Prato & Reichman, APC &
Justin M. Prato, Prato & Reichman, APC.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Anton N. Handal --
tony.handal@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP & Garry W.
O'Donnell -- garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
pro hac vice.

National Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Barton H. Hegeler -- mail@hegeler-
anderson.com -- Hegler & Anderson.

Unified Life Insurance Company, Inc., a Texas Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Robert S. Crowder --
rcrowder@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP.

Companion Life Insurance Company, a South Carolina Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller --
chad.fuller@troutman.com  -- Troutman Sanders LLP.

Donisi Jax, Inc., a Florida Corporation also known as Nationwide
Health Advisors, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Meeker --
jmeeker@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Fonseca" Discrimination Suit Removed to N.D. Ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bryant Fonseca, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff, v. Hewlett-Packard Company, HP
Enterprise Services, LLC, HP, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-00045630 (Cal. Super., November 29,
2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 11, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-
00071.

Fonseca filed a class-action styled complaint for disparate
treatment age discrimination in violation of California Business
and Professions Code and unfair competition and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
      HOGUE & BELONG
      170 Laurel Street, Second Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 238-4720
      Fax: (619) 270-9856
      Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Jody A. Landry, Esq.
      Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq.
      Christina Hayes, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101.3577
      Telephone: (619) 232-0441
      Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
      Email: jlandry@littler.com
             sfahimi@littler.com
             chayes@littler.com


HILL BROTHERS: $850K Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT K. HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HILL BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC, et al., Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:14-CV-213-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Judge Sharion Aycock of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the
Settlement Class.

The Plaintiffs originally filed a two-count complaint on Sept.
29, 2014 for Plan-wide relief pursuant to Section 502(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, on behalf of a class
consisting of all current and former participants in the ESOP
Plan.  In the Plaintiffs' Count I, they alleged that the
Defendants negligently breached their fiduciary duties to them by
failing to manage prudently and loyally the Plan's investments in
HBC's securities and by failing to provide complete and accurate
records and information to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition and the prudence of investing in
Company stock.  In Count II, they alleged that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to them, the Plan, and the
putative class, by failing to monitor adequately other persons to
whom management/administration of Plan assets was delegated.

On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint, adding Count III, and alleging that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs, the Plan, and
the putative class, by theft of corporate opportunity --
specifically with regard to the Defendants' relationships with
Hill Brothers Leasing and Xcavators, Inc.

After extensive discovery and motion practice, the Parties
mediated the matter.  The Parties finalized an agreement, which
culminated in the Memorandum of Settlement Agreement on Aug. 8,
2016, followed by the execution of a Settlement Agreement on
March 23, 2017.  On May 3, 2017, the Parties attended a hearing
for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and class
certification.  On May 9, 2017, the Court entered an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement between the
parties.  It further approved the class notice.

Notice was then sent to all class members with additional
mailings to members whose mail was returned.  No objections were
filed by any class member from the time Notice commenced to the
date of this order, and only one individual class member chose to
opt out.  On July 26, 2017, counsel for the Class, Diandra S.
Debrosse Zimmermann, filed an affidavit detailing Class counsel's
efforts in locating and notifying all class members.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the
Settlement Class.  On Aug. 15, 2017, the Court held the Fairness
Hearing.  No persons other than the Parties appeared in Court
seeking to address the settlement pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement

Judge Aycock granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class.  The
Judge now granted final certification of the class, for
settlement purposes, of all participants, beneficiaries, and
alternate payees of the ESOP reflected on the records of the ESOP
as of Aug. 15, 2013.

Furthermore, Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther, Sandy Byther, Keith
Clark, Samuel Copeland, B.T. Erve, Percy Evans, George Flakes,
Scott Goolsby, Sheila Kelly, Paul Leonard, Fred Smith, Dewayne
Toliver, Ulysses Wiley, and Warlfoyd Winters are designated as
the representatives of the Settlement Class.  Matthew Y. Harris,
Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Edgar C. Gentle, III, L.N. Chandler
Rogers and Sterling DeRamus and their respective law firms are
appointed as the Settlement Class counsel.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendants will pay $850,000 for the Settlement Amount.  This
tender by the Defendants is inclusive of all claims, including
payment of notice costs, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
incentive awards, and all other items of liability.  This is a
full-distribution non-reversionary settlement to be paid into the
Plan after the payment of notice costs, attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses. No sums will revert to Defendants, and no
Defendants will benefit from this settlement.

The Members of the Settlement Class will benefit immediately from
the resolution of the matter, as the remaining portion of the
Settlement Amount, after attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and
costs of notice will be paid into the Plan.  Upon payment into
the Plan, the share of the Settlement Amount, after attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses, to which a member of the Class is
entitled will be based upon the records and terms of the Plan as
of Aug. 15, 2013.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Court's Order Granting
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Incentive Payments, Judge Aycock
granted the  Settlement Class counsel's request for an incentive
award to the Class Representatives and awards $2,500 to each
class representative, to include Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther,
Sandy Byther, Keith Clark, Samuel Copeland, B.T. Erve, Percy
Evans, George Flakes, Scott Goolsby, Sheila Kelly, Paul Leonard,
Fred Smith, Dewayne Toliver, Ulysses Wiley, and Warlfoyd Winters.

The Defendants' counsel will provide to Settlement Class counsel
a final accounting detailing the distribution of the Settlement
Amount  by the Plan Administrators by Sept. 3, 2018, and the
Settlement Counsel will file a copy of the same with the Court by
Sept. 10, 2018.  The Plan Administrators will make all
distributions to the Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's orders.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice the case pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41.  However, with the consent of the Parties, he retains
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the
Settlement and of the Final Judgment and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/quDoZV from Leagle.com.

Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther, Sandy Byther, Samuel Copeland, B.
T. Erve, Percy Evans, George Flakes, Scott Goolsby, Sheila Kelly,
Paul Leonard, Fred Smith DO NOT FILE, Dewayne Tolliver, Ulysses
Wiley & Warfloyd Winters, Individually and on Behalf of
Themselves, and on behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III -- escrowagen@aol.com -- GENTLE TURNER SEXTON
DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The
Law Offices of Matthew Y. Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus --
sderamus@deramuslaw.com -- STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY, pro hac
vice.

Keith Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Laurance Nicholas Chandler
Rogers, ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A.

Keenneth W. Hill, Defendant, represented by Ralph E. Chapman --
ralph@chapman-lewis-swan.com -- CHAPMAN, LEWIS & SWAN & William
B. Raiford, III, MERKEL & COCKE.

Gerald C. Hill, Defendant, represented by Hal S. Spragins --
hspragins@hickmanlaw.com -- HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC &
Lawrence John Tucker, Jr., HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC.

Sterling Aker, The Hill Brothers Construction Company Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership and 401(K) Plan and Trust Plan
Administrative Committee, Danny McAlister, Donald Bates, Jane
Childs, Beth Lockhart, Mark Robertson, Doug Horton & David
Horton, Defendants, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan --
kcoghlan@rayburnlaw.com -- RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC.

Clyde R. Robertson, Defendant, represented by John Samuel Hill --
Jhill@mitchellmcnutt.com -- MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Guy W.
Mitchell, III, MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Kenneth Hill, Jr., Defendant, represented by John Booth Farese,
FARESE, FARESE & FARESE.


HILL BROTHERS: Court Awards $283K Attys' Fees in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT K. HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HILL BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC, et al., Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:14-CV-213-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Judge Sharion Aycock of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses and Incentive Payments to Class Representatives.

The Parties to the action reached a settlement on March 23, 2017,
which the Court approved after ensuring party compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness
Act.  After substantial briefing on the Counsels' request for an
award of fees, the Court held a Fairness Hearing held on Aug. 15,
2017 regarding final approval of the settlement, which included
extensive oral argument on the issue of the fee award.

Judge Aycock has carefully reviewed the record relating to the
fee award issue, and finds that an adjustment of the benchmark
rate need not be made.  Many factors that might have more effect
in a case where the lodestar approach was used are less
important, where the very nature of a percentage recovery
encompasses many of the concerns that these factors address.  As
there are no objections to the requests made for the relief
requested, and he finds the amounts fair and reasonable, Judge
Aycock granted the Class Counsel's requests for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards.

Accordingly, he awarded the Settlement Class Counsel the sum of
$283,333.33 as an award of attorneys' fees to be paid from the
Settlement Amount 30 days after the "Effective Date" (within 35
days of final judgment).  He awarded the Settlement Class Counsel
the sum of $42,828.37 as reimbursement of expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Amount 30 days after the "Effective Date"
within 35 days of final judgment).  Furthermore, the Judge
granted the Settlement Class counsel's request for an incentive
award to the Class Representatives and awarded $2,500 to each
class representative, to include Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther,
Sandy Byther, Keith Clark, Samuel Copeland, B.T. Erve, Percy
Evans, George Flakes, Scott Goolsby, Sheila Kelly, Paul Leonard,
Fred Smith, Dewayne Toliver, Ulysses Wiley, and Warlfoyd Winters.
The payment will be made from the Settlement Amount 30 days after
the "Effective Date."

The Defendants are ordered to deduct the award of attorneys'
fees, reimbursable expenses ad incentives to the Class
Representatives from the Settlement Amount and pay said sum to
the law firm of Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse - Trial Lawyers.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/1sOGjJ from Leagle.com.

Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther, Sandy Byther, Samuel Copeland, B.
T. Erve, Percy Evans, George Flakes, Scott Goolsby, Sheila Kelly,
Paul Leonard, Fred Smith DO NOT FILE, Dewayne Tolliver, Ulysses
Wiley & Warfloyd Winters, Individually and on Behalf of
Themselves, and on behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III -- escrowagen@aol.com -- GENTLE TURNER SEXTON
DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The
Law Offices of Matthew Y. Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus --
sderamus@deramuslaw.com -- STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY, pro hac
vice.

Keith Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Laurance Nicholas Chandler
Rogers, ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A.

Keenneth W. Hill, Defendant, represented by Ralph E. Chapman --
ralph@chapman-lewis-swan.com -- CHAPMAN, LEWIS & SWAN & William
B. Raiford, III, MERKEL & COCKE.

Gerald C. Hill, Defendant, represented by Hal S. Spragins --
hspragins@hickmanlaw.com -- HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC &
Lawrence John Tucker, Jr., HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC.

Sterling Aker, The Hill Brothers Construction Company Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership and 401(K) Plan and Trust Plan
Administrative Committee, Danny McAlister, Donald Bates, Jane
Childs, Beth Lockhart, Mark Robertson, Doug Horton & David
Horton, Defendants, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan --
kcoghlan@rayburnlaw.com -- RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC.

Clyde R. Robertson, Defendant, represented by John Samuel Hill --
Jhill@mitchellmcnutt.com -- MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Guy W.
Mitchell, III, MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS.

Kenneth Hill, Jr., Defendant, represented by John Booth Farese,
FARESE, FARESE & FARESE.


INNERVISION LLC: M. Miller & Son Sues Over Illegally-Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
M. Miller & Son, LLC, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Innervision, LLC, (d/b/a
Shermco Vending), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00448, (D. N.J.,
January 11, 2018), seeks actual damages or five hundred dollars
in statutory damages, treble damages and such other and further
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is into vending machines sales, vending machine repair
services and vending machine route sales. It allegedly sent
Plaintiff faxed advertisements without prior consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      Email: info@marcuszelman.com


INTEL CORP: "Lee" Sues Over Processor Defect
--------------------------------------------
Simon Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00235, (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2018), seeks all proper
measures of monetary relief and damages, plus interest,
equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief including
restitution and disgorgement, costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief resulting
from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of implied
warranty, in violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act of the
California Business and Professions Code.

Intel manufactures the central processing units (CPU) that power
most servers, laptops, desktop computers, tablets, smartphones,
and other computing devices. Said CPUs suffer from several
defects that allow hackers to access to what was supposed to be
secure data. These Defects cannot be fixed remotely via a
software update while any mitigation efforts would seriously
affect CPU performance, notes the complaint.

Lee purchased a Macbook Pro laptop computer containing an Intel
Core i7 processor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (301) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (301) 201-9160
      Email: kruf@gmail.com
             info@glancylaw.com


INTEL CORP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased Intel Corporation ("Intel") (NASDAQ:INTC) securities
between July 27, 2017 and January 4, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sb/intel-corporation?wire=2. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) there is a fundamental design flaw
in Intel's processor chips as they contain a feature that makes
them vulnerable to hacking; (2) updates to fix the problems in
Intel's processor chips could cause Intel chips to operate 5-30
percent more slowly; and (3) consequently, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you suffered a loss in Intel you have until March 12, 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sb/intel-
corporation?wire=2.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.

         Contacts
         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
         Tel: 212-425-1140
         Fax. 866-699-3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


INTEL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Intel Corporation ("Intel") (NASDAQ:INTC) between
July 27, 2017 and January 4, 2018.  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/intel-corporation?wire=2

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) there is a fundamental design flaw
in Intel's processor chips as they contain a feature that makes
them vulnerable to hacking; (2) updates to fix the problems in
Intel's processor chips could cause Intel chips to operate 5-30
percent more slowly; and (3) consequently, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you suffered a loss in Intel you have until March 12, 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]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Appeal Talcum Powder Case Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that plaintiffs appealing the dismissal of
their talcum powder class action lawsuit have filed an appellate
brief in the 3rd Circuit, arguing that recent case law out of
that appellate court supports their position that a consumer's
purchase of a product based on allegedly deceptive behavior
constitutes injury-in-fact.

In the appellate brief, filed Jan. 5 in the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals, the plaintiffs maintained that they have Article III
standing to sue the defendants since they would not have
purchased the talcum powder products if they had included
truthful advertising.

Mona Estrada filed the class action against both Johnson &
Johnson and its subsidiary. [GN]


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Birchwood May Join Flushable Wipes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Debra Neutkens, writing for White Bear Press, reports that what
do wet wipes, dental floss, beach towels, marbles and cat litter
have in common? They've all been flushed down the toilet.

And that's only just the beginning.  Add pharmaceuticals, paper
towels and diapers to that list.

Of the many things people are throwing down their drain lately,
flushable wipes are giving public works the biggest headaches.

"In every city, flushable wipes are jamming up sewer pumps," said
Mike Loflin with Hugo Public Works.  "And it's getting worse."

Cities are being forced to use different style pumps and/or
replace $10,000 lift pumps more often because of the wipes.

The village of Birchwood is replacing pumps meant to last 10
years in its lift stations every 12 to 18 months, according to
Mayor Mary Wingfield.

"We're going through pumps like people go through flushable
wipes," quipped the mayor, who bemoaned the fact residents may
not be listening to the city's pleas.

"You can't flush these wipes," Mayor Wingfield said. "What
advertising says about these products being flushable is not the
truth, and it's costing taxpayers money."

The mayor worries that the issue isn't on people's radar. "People
flush stuff down the toilet and think it's done. Out of sight,
out of mind. We have to keep reminding people what they can and
cannot flush down the sewer system."

The troublesome wipes clog up impellers on the pumps, tripping
breakers and locking up the motor.  "It shortens the life of the
pump and they can't move water," Mr. Loflin explained.  "We've
had to switch to a less efficient vortex pump that doesn't clog
up as easily.  It's a nationwide problem that ends up costing
taxpayers more money for electricity and maintenance and crews
are getting calls in the middle of the night to pull pumps."

In his 15 years with the city, Mr. Loflin has found beach towels,
two by fours, and a shovel handle in the sewer system.  But it's
the "great big balls of wipes" that cause 90 percent of the
problem with sewer pumps.

"There can be several hundred to a thousand wipes shredded and
gathered in one big mass," said the Hugo worker.  "They're like a
magnet to each other.  We're down there with pry bars and knives
trying to pull them apart.  It's a huge deal."

About once a month, Centerville Public Works hires a company to
pull up clogged lift station pumps.

Technician Ted Peterson said it costs the city about $200 each
time.

Just last month, Centerville city leaders approved a lift station
rehab in the amount of almost $25,000 for a new pump.  A council
member blamed it on damage caused by "flushable" wipes and other
debris that caused the system to fail.

Peterson agrees that the items causing the most problems are the
(non)flushable wipes.  Dental floss has also been a problem. When
Waterworks Beach Club was open, they'd find bras and underwear
jamming up the pumps in a lift station next door, Peterson added.
He has kept what he calls "flushable wipe snakes" and put them in
a display case to "shock people."

Birchwood is considering joining a class-action lawsuit against
makers of the flushable wipes.  City Administrator Tobin Lay
feels the city's continuing problem with replacing sewer
impellers provides just cause.

The city has spent about $14,000 since January 2016 on sewer
repairs specifically linked to the wipes and "stuff that
shouldn't be flushed," Mr. Lay said.  "For a small village of 900
residents, that's a significant cost."

Last Mr. Lay heard, Birchwood city attorney Alan Kantrud was
waiting for notice from the original attorneys petitioning for
class action classification.  "I don't think anything is official
yet but I know many communities had their interest piqued when
the class action idea came out." [GN]


KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Asks Feds to Probe Fraudulent Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Francisco has flagged fraudulent claims filed in a privacy
class action for investigation by the local U.S. Attorney's
Office.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California took the extraordinary move of referring the case to
local federal prosecutors after the claims administrator managing
the $5.3 million settlement identified nearly 6,000 potentially
bogus claims.  Plaintiffs counsel in the case said the fraudulent
claims could have siphoned away about $400,000 from legitimate
class members.

In the Jan. 16 order, Judge Tigar said he took no position on
whether prosecutors should bring charges or not.

The underlying case, Opperman v. Kong Technologies, dates back to
2013. Plaintiffs targeted Apple Inc. and a group of app makers
claiming that app makers violated users' privacy by accessing the
contact information stored on their Apple devices.  Apple beat
back the plaintiffs' bid for class certification late last year
after the app makers, including Twitter Inc., Instagram LLC and
Yelp Inc., previously agreed to settle.

The lead plaintiffs lawyers on the case at Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin and Kerr & Wagstaffe asked Judge Tigar in November
how to proceed after the administrator handling the claims
process, KCC Class Action Services LLC, identified 5,924 claims
that it suspected weren't submitted by class members.  None of
the identified claims used unique claim numbers provided in email
notices that were sent out to potential class members.  In
addition, numerous claims had different physical addresses but
came from identical IP addresses.

Todd Hilsee, a class action consultant with The Hilsee Group LLC
who was not involved in the case, said that the case provides "a
window into a practice that is more common now with electronic
claims."

"This is one of the undesirable or unintended consequences of
electronic claims filing and electronic notice," Mr. Hilsee said.

Judge Tigar asked KCC to email the flagged claimants to ask for
proof of identity and asked the administrator to report back
after allowing a week for claimants to respond. Tellingly, KCC
only received two responses and determined that neither of the
underlying claims was actually submitted by a class member.

Kerr & Wagstaffe's Michael von Loewenfeldt --
mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- one of the lead attorneys on the case,
said that KCC's screening meant that $400,000 in potential claims
would be paid out to class members rather than fraudsters.

"Unfortunately, if you have an open claims process people will
try to take advantage of it--and not very skillfully it turns
out," Mr. von Loewenfeldt said. [GN]


LIBQUAL FENCE: "Monzano-Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Monzano-Moreno, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Libqual Fence Co., Inc. (d/b/a
Liberty Fence and Railing) and Anthony Strianese, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00161, (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and earned wages, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Libqual is a construction company that constructs repairs and
replaces and specializes in residential and commercial fence and
railing installations where Moreno worked as a construction
worker, regularly working more than 40 hours per week without
overtime pay. Libqual allegedly failed to keep accurate records
of hours of their employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. GOODMAN P.C.
      380 North Broadway, Suite 203
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Tel: (516) 597-5840
           (631) 656-8180
      Fax: (866) 415-1019
      Email: ggoodman@gganylaw.com


MARKETRON BROADCAST: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Reese"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEE REESE, v. MARKETRON BROADCAST SOLUTIONS, LLC,
ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-9772 (E.D. La.),
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claims in her first amended complaint.

Reese filed the putative class action seeking damages and
equitable relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In
her first amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Marketron, Atlantic, BWA, Citadel, and Studio Network-
Orpheum, LLC, sent unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiffs,
and others similarly situated, promoting live concerts.  The
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants sent these messages using
an automatic telephone dialing system.

Atlantic, BWA, and Citadel now move to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims in the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiff did not oppose these motions,
but instead filed a second amended complaint which names only
Marketron as a Defendant.  She has also filed a motion for class
certification.

Judge Vance concludes that the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint fails to state a TCPA claim because it rests on
conclusory allegations of collective wrongdoing.  The complaint
directs its allegations towards the Defendants as a group without
explaining any particular Defendant's involvement.

As the Seventh Circuit recently noted, "liability is personal."
Because the notice pleading requirement of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure entitles each Defendant to know what he or she
did that is asserted to be wrongful, allegations based on a
theory of collective responsibility cannot withstand a motion to
dismiss.  That the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
alleging wrongful conduct only by Marketron highlights the dearth
of factual allegations against the other Defendants.  Thus, the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint does not state a claim
against Atlantic, BWA, and Citadel.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Vance granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  She dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's
claims against Atlantic, BWA, and Citadel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/wjeGI4 from Leagle.com.

Renee Reese, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales, Costales
Law Office, Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales LLC &
William Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law.

Marketron Broadcast Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Duris Lee Holmes -- dholmes@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch
Kerrigan LLP, Raymond C. Lewis -- rlewis@deutschkerrigan.com --
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & Victor M. Jones --
vjones@deutschkerrigan.com Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: April 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the Marvell Technology Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DANIEL LUNA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,


vs.

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-05447-WHA
(Consolidated)
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. ("MARVELL") COMMON STOCK
DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 19, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 7,
2015, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
that a hearing will be held on April 17, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable William Alsup, United States District Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California,
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated
December 19, 2017 ("Stipulation"), of the above-captioned action
("Litigation") for $72,500,000.00 in cash should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a
Judgment should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation
with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED MARVELL COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AND DECEMBER 7, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim and Release"), you may obtain
copies by writing to Marvell Technology Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404041,
Louisville, KY 40233-4041, or on the internet at
www.MarvellSecuritiesClassAction.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail postmarked no later than May 7, 2018, or
submitted electronically no later than May 7, 2018, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.  Your failure to submit your
Proof of Claim and Release by May 7, 2018, will subject your
claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of this
Litigation.  If you are a Member of the Class and do not request
exclusion, you will be bound by the settlement and any judgment
and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited
to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and
Release.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than
March 27, 2018.  All Members of the Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by the settlement entered
in the Litigation even if they do not submit a timely Proof of
Claim and Release.

Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be submitted to the Court in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice no later
than March 27, 2018.  If you object, but also want to be eligible
for a payment from the settlement, you must still submit a Proof
of Claim and Release or you will not receive a payment from the
settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the following address:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
DATED: December 21, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


MASONITE CORP: "Mathis" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Desmond Mathis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Masonite Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00079, (N.D. Tex., January 11, 2017),
seeks unpaid back wages due with corresponding liquidated
damages, taxable costs and allowable expenses of this action,
attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant is a worldwide manufacturer of interior and exterior
doors, door entry systems, and door components where Mathis
worked the production line working approximately 50-53 hours per
week without the appropriate overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com


MDL 2779: Maryland County Joins Artificial Turf Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ozanian, writing for Forbes, reports that the size of the
class of the lawsuit against artificial turf company FieldTurf is
getting bigger.

Mr. Ozanian said "I have learned that in December, Mike Riley,
the Director of Montgomery Parks, wrote the following in a
letter:

"After careful consideration of the condition and damage to
various turf fields purchased from Field Turf, including the
field located at Montgomery Blair High School, and legal options,
the Commission will seek relief as a member of the class in the
matter pending before the United States District Court --
District of New Jersey, In Re: FieldTurf Artificial Turf
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.: 17-md-02779
MAS.  In this case, it is alleged that Field Turf misrepresented
the reliability, performance, and cost-effectiveness of its turf
fields in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act;
knowingly provided turf fields which contained defects in
materials that were never disclosed; and, otherwise asserted that
the fields provided were in merchantable condition and fit for
their intended purpose, in breach of its express and implied
warranties."

Montgomery Parks is run by the Maryland National Park and
Planning Commission. The MNCPPC runs Montgomery Parks department
and the Prince George's County Parks department.

A year ago Mr. Ozanian wrote a story on the deterioration of a
field at one of the county's high schools: "The principal of
Blair High School in Montgomery County, Maryland, announced that
the stadium is closed so that its artificial turf field can be
replaced.  The field was installed in 2009. A press release dated
January 13 of this year says, in part, "The carpet on the
artificial turf field at Blair High School has deteriorated and
is heavily worn."  What is unusual about the principal's tweet is
that the field was studied for problems; once in August and then
again in October (see results below). The report in August
basically said the field was fine. The report in October
indicates potential safety problems."

Investors may be getting nervous.  Shares of Tarkett, the French
company that owns FieldTurf, have dropped 10% in 2018 compared
with a 3.7% gain for the CAC 40.

Mr. Ozanian has been following the economics of artificial turf
fields for a while now and find some of the supposed savings in
such fields to be bogus.  In 2014, for example, I wrote "non-
partisan studies have shown the exact opposite -- natural grass
fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge
costs taxpayers get stuck with to maintain and replace artificial
fields after their warrantees expire."

One of the issues appears to be that Montgomery Parks only owns
one of the public high school artificial turf fields.  The other
defective artificial turf fields are owned by the public school
system and they have not been replaced, nor have they responded
to requests from the public to sue FieldTurf. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Bid to Stay Smokey Alley Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SMOKEY ALLEY FARM PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17 CV 2031
JMB (E.D. Mo.), Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings
Pending Resolution of Motion for Transfer of Related Actions
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Class Action
Complaint, asserting Sherman Act, Lanham Act, products liability,
trespass, public nuisance, strict liability, negligence,
Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and civil conspiracy
claims with allegations relating to seed products and three
different herbicides.  On Oct. 13, 2017, the Defendants filed
three separate motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Rather than opposing the motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on Nov. 3, 2017, expanding their claims and
the number of states involved, terminating party Defendant DuPont
Pioneer, and adding numerous Plaintiffs to the putative class
action.

The Plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint include alleged
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, state tort claims
under five different states' laws, and alleged Lanham Act
violations.

On Dec. 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Stay.  They
move to stay the proceedings in the case, the briefing of the
motions to dismiss, pending resolution of the motion to transfer
and consolidate this action with eight other dicamba cases by the
JPML.  The Defendants oppose the motion to stay, arguing that
transfer to the MDL is not appropriate, and regardless of the
JPML's decision, the motions to dismiss will need to be briefed.

On Dec. 18, 2017, the Defendants once again filed separate
motions to dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen holds denying a stay will not
prejudice the parties.  As such, a stay of these proceedings will
not cure the inefficiencies cited by the Plaintiffs as instances
of hardship or inequity in moving forward with the briefing of
the motions to dismiss.  The current briefing schedule for the
Defendants' motions to dismiss will be maintained.  The parties
are to apprise the Court of any developments with respect to the
Jan. 25, 2018, hearing on the motion to transfer and consolidate
and the JPML's subsequent ruling.

Having considered the parties' submissions and arguments,
Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
stay because he does not view a stay as necessarily achieving any
efficiency for the Plaintiffs or the Court.  He finds that no
justifiable reason exists for delaying the briefing on the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  While he appreciates the
Plaintiffs' desire to await a ruling from the JPML, the timing of
the ruling on the MDL motion and the outcome is uncertain.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/qSdLD0 from Leagle.com.

Smokey Alley Farm Partnership, Amore Farms, JTM Farms
Partnership, Kenneth Loretta Garrett Qualls Farm Partnership,
Qualls Land Co., McLemore Farms LLC & Michael Baioni, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael G. Smith, DOVER AND DIXON, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Paul J. James, JAMES AND CARTER, LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A.
Lesko -- plesko@prwlegal.com -- PEIFFER AND ROSCA LLP & Brandon
Michael Wise -- bwise@prwlegal.com -- PEIFFER AND ROSCA LLP.

LGO Farms Partnership, Heinco Farms, John P. Baioni Farms,
Morrison Partners, Hunter Tree Farms, Henry D. and Jeff Finch
Farms, PE Partners, Kemp Farms, Randy Fendrick, Heitmann
Brothers, LLC, Mattis Farms, Heitmann Farms Inc., Robert Delaney,
Buckskin Farms, HH Farm Partnership, Speiser Farm Inc., Cooper
Family Farms, Jerry Stogsdill, Robert Terry Farms & Vincent
Farms, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul A. Lesko, PEIFFER AND
ROSCA LLP.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E. Sternhell
Blackwell, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox -- dcox@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP & John J. Rosenthal -- jrosenthal@winston.com --
WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP, pro hac vice.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler --
cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, John P. Mandler --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Ross W.
Johnson -- ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, pro
hac vice, Tarifa Belle Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --
FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas J. Magee --
tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Troy A. Bozarth --
tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company & Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., Defendants, represented by C. David Goerisch
-- dgoerisch@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, John Mann Johnson
-- jjohnson@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C.,
pro hac vice, R. Brad Ziegler -- bziegler@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS
RICE, LLC, Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com --
LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey P. Doss,
LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C., pro hac vice & Richard B. Walsh,
Jr. -- rwalsh@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC.


MRI INTERNATIONAL: $13MM Settlement with Suzuki Has Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA,
TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA,
HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class
action settlement.

Having considered the Motion, the Settlement Agreement, the
proposed form of notice to the Class, the pleadings and other
papers filed in these Actions, and for good cause shown, Judge
McKibben finds that the proposed Settlement with the Settling
Defendants for approximately $13,100,000 is sufficiently fair,
reasonable and adequate such that it is preliminarily approved.
In accordance with the schedule outlined, the Class Counsel will
seek entry of an Order and Final Judgment as to the Settling
Defendants (Junzo Suzuki, Paul Suzuki, Keiko Suzuki, Suzuki
Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing, (5) Catherine Suzuki, as
trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable Trust, (6) Catherine
Suzuki, as trustee of the Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable Trust, (7)
Catherine Suzuki, as trustee of the Junzo Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki
Irrevocable Trust, (8) Suzuki Enterprises, Inc., (9) Puuikena
Investments LLP, (10) Catherine Suzuki, as trustee of the
Catherine Suzuki Irrevocable Trust dated May 10, 2013 and (11)
Paul Musashi Suzuki, as trustee of the Paul Musashi Suzuki
Irrevocable Trust dated May 10, 2013.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' request to defer distribution
of the Settlement Funds and propose a Plan of Allocation until
final resolution of the case or at a later time, upon approval by
the Court.  He conditionally certified the Class as to the
Uncertified Settling Defendants, subject to final approval of the
Settlements pursuant to the findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The Court previously certified the Class as to Junzo Suzuki and
Paul Suzuki on March 21, 2016, and as subsequently amended on May
6, 2016.  The causes of actions asserted against the Uncertified
Settling Defendants are the same as those asserted against the
certified defendants.

The Judge approved the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, and finds that the dissemination of the Settlement Notice
substantially in the manner and form set forth in the Settlement
Agreements complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 and due process of law, and is the best
notice practicable under the circumstances.

The Court has already determined that the Yuko Nakamura is an
adequate class representative and that the Class Counsel has
vigorously prosecuted the action and can adequately represent the
proposed class.

He appointed the Japanese attorney group which represents the
interests of certain MRI victims in Japan as the Notice
Administrator.  Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the
Notice Administrator will (1) disseminate the Notice of
Settlement to the Class with the cover letter; (2) cause the
Notice of Settlement to be published on the National Consumer
Affairs of Japan's website; and (3) make relevant documents in
English and Japanese accessible to the Class on the MRI
Higaibengodan's website.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
the Notice Administrator's costs will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, subject to Court review and approval.

The Class Counsel will file their motion for payment of
attorneys' fees and costs no later than 31 days from the date the
Notice of Settlement is mailed.

A final telephonic hearing on the Settlement Agreement will be
held at 9:00 a.m. on April 26, 2018.  Objections, along with any
statements of intent to appear, must be postmarked no later than
52 days from the Notice date, and mailed to the addresses
provided in the Notice.

The schedule by which the events referenced will occur as
follows:

     a. Notice of Class Action Settlement to Be Mailed and Posted
on Internet - Within 60 days from Preliminary Approval Order

     b. Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Filed by Class
Counsel - To be completed 31 days from Notice Date

     c. Objection Deadline - 52 days from Notice Date of Notice
Administrator Affidavit - To be filed 30 days prior to the Final
Approval

     d. Compliance with Notice Requirements Hearing Motion for
Final Approval - To be filed 21 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing

     e. Responses or Opposition to the Motion for Final Approval
Hearing - To be filed 14 days prior to the Final Approval

     f. Replies in Support of Motions for Final Approval Hearing,
Attorneys' Fees and Costs - To be filed 7 days prior to the Final
Approval

     g. Final Approval Hearing - April 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

All further proceedings as to Settling Defendants are hereby
stayed and all deadlines are vacated, except for any actions
required to effectuate or enforce the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AS0M7Y from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons -
-
jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski,
Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen,
Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick --
sjr@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto,
Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko
Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu
Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning
& Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices
of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants,
represented by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M.
Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki & Paul Musashi Suzuki, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -
- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson --
pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A.
Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen,
LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison &
Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust UAD 7/12/2013, First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Keiko
Suzuki Irrevocable Trust UAD 7/12/2013 & First Hawaiian Bank, as
Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable Life
Insurance Trust U/A dtd 5/1/2008, Defendants, represented by
Christopher R. Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
(CA), LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman
LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder
Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group, Robert A. Rabbat, Enenstein Pham & Glass &
Tess Emily Johnson, Backus Carranza.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing &
Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S.
Dzarnoski, Gordan & Silver, Ltd..


MRI INTERNATIONAL: $415K Settlement with ICAG Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA,
TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA,
HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba ICAG, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-
01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement with ICAG, Inc.

Judge McKibben finds that the proposed Settlement with ICAG,
which provides for (i) cash payments totalling $265,000; (ii) an
assignment of accounts receivable in the amount of $150,000 owed
by Premier Entertainment Services International, Inc. to ICAG;
and (iii) an assignment by Cheryl Shintaku of the 15% interest in
HMC Service Center, LLC that she inherited from Richard Shintaku
is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate such that it is
preliminarily approved.

He granted the Plaintiffs' request to defer distribution of the
Settlement Funds and propose a Plan of Allocation until final
resolution of the case or at a later time, upon approval by the
Court.

The Judge approved the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action.  He appointed the Japanese attorney group which
represents the interests of certain MRI victims in Japanas the
Notice Administrator.  Consistent with the Settlement Agreement,
the Notice Administrator will (1) disseminate the Notice of
Settlement to the Class with the cover letter; (2) cause the
Notice of Settlement to be published on the National Consumer
Affairs of Japan's website; (3) make relevant documents in
English and Japanese accessible to the Class on the MRI
Higaibengodan's website; and (4) receive and maintain Requests
for Exclusion. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Notice
Administrator's costs will be paid out of the Settlement Fund,
subject to Court review and approval.

The Notice Administrator will cause the Settlement Notice to be
mailed, postage prepaid, to all Class Members within 60 days from
entry of this order.  The Notice Administrator will also cause
the Settlement Notice to be published on the National Consumer
Affairs of Japan's website.  At least 30 days prior to the Final
Approval Hearing, the Notice Administrator will file with the
Court an Affidavit of Compliance with the Notice Requirements.
All costs incurred in disseminating Notice and administering the
Settlement will be paid from the Settlement Fund.  The Class
Counsel will seek Court approval for reimbursement of the notice
costs prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

The Class Members will have 52 days from the date the Notice of
Settlement is mailed to request to be excluded from the Proposed
Settlement.  The Class Counsel will file their motion for payment
of attorneys' fees and costs no later than 31 days from the date
the Notice of Settlement is mailed.

A final telephonic hearing on the Settlement Agreement will be
held at 9:00 a.m. on July 10, 2018.

The schedule by which the events referenced will occur as
follows:

     a. Notice of Class Action Settlement to Be Mailed and Posted
on Internet - Within 60 days of Preliminary Approval Order

     b. Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs - To be completed 31
days from Notice Date Filed by Class Counsel

     c. Opt-Out and Objection Deadline - 52 days from Notice Date

     d. Notice Administrator Affidavit of Compliance with Notice
Requirements - To be filed 30 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing

     e. Motion for Final Approval - To be filed 21 days prior to
Final Approval Hearing

     f. Responses or Opposition to the Motion for Final Approval
- To be filed 14 days prior to Final Approval Hearing

     g. Provide List of Persons Who Have Made Requests for
Exclusions - To be filed 14 days prior to Final Approval Hearing

     h. Replies in Support of Motions for Final Approval Hearing
- To be filed 7 days prior to Final Approval Hearing, Attorneys'
Fees and Costs Hearing

     i. Final Approval Hearing - July 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

All further proceedings as to ICAG are stayed and all deadlines
are vacated, except for any actions required to effectuate or
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1sOGjJ from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons -
- jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski,
Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen,
Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick --
sjr@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto,
Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko
Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu
Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning
& Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices
of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants,
represented by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M.
Ferran .

Junzo Suzuki & Paul Musashi Suzuki, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -
- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson --
pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A.
Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen,
LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison &
Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust UAD 7/12/2013, First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Keiko
Suzuki Irrevocable Trust UAD 7/12/2013 & First Hawaiian Bank, as
Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable Life
Insurance Trust U/A dtd 5/1/2008, Defendants, represented by
Christopher R. Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
(CA), LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman
LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder
Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group, Robert A. Rabbat, Enenstein Pham & Glass &
Tess Emily Johnson, Backus Carranza.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing &
Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S.
Dzarnoski, Gordan & Silver, Ltd.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Expected to Pay More Than $200MM in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hemphill, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that
Murray Goulburn investors may receive less than 75c for their
units or shares, with a source close to the class action against
the company expecting the dairy co-operative to pay out more than
$200 million.

While the source said no precise figure had been set as to what
the damages payout would be, he expected it to be "well in excess
of $100 million but probably in excess of $200 million".

Murray Goulburn was planning to withhold $194 million to $222
million of the $1.31 billion achieved from the Saputo sale to pay
for costs associated with the class action and other wind-up
expenses.

That left an estimated 75c cents a share/unit to be paid out to
shareholders and unit holders soon after completion of the deal.

The co-operative told shareholders at its annual general meeting
it would return any unused funds to investors after the class
action was resolved.

However, a payout of more than $200 million would put in some
doubt investors receiving more than 75c.

Dairy farmers have told The Weekly Times they wanted at least $1
for their shares, threatening to vote against the Saputo sale if
they did not receive it.

The class action source said litigants had a strong case for a
hefty payout.

Litigants allege information in MG's product disclosure statement
compiled for the listing of units on the Australian Securities
Exchange was "deceptive or misleading."

Murray Goulburn had consistently said it did not consider it had
any issues with its continuous disclosure process or the
statements made in its PDS.  In its recent defence filed in the
Federal Court, MG rejected dozens of accusations by class action
litigants.

The class action source said a trial date had not been set yet.

"We are going through the legal process of discovery," he said.
"We have got a lot of documents, but there are many more to come.

The recent buyer of a 5 per cent stake in Murray Goulburn said he
was expecting a return of $1 to $1.05 a unit on his investment.

Philippines-born Robert Petersen bought more than 7.9 million
units in Murray Goulburn since the announcement of the sale to
Canadian dairy giant Saputo Inc. on October 27 last year.

Mr Petersen spent $8.37 million buying units in his name and that
of a company he owned called Ayersland at an average of 81.3
cents a unit.

He said he looked at "merger and acquisition opportunities".

"I am a risk taker," he said. [GN]


NATIONWIDE TRUCKERS: Affirmative Defenses Partly Struck
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's
Affirmative Defenses in the case, SWINTER GROUP, INC., Plaintiff,
v. NATIONWIDE TRUCKERS' INSURANCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-CV-2310-SPM (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.  It alleges that on Sept. 8,
2015, the Defendants sent an unsolicited advertisement to its fax
machine.  The Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that
the Defendants have sent other advertisements by fax to at least
40 other persons.  It also alleges that these advertisements
lacked the notice required by the TCPA to inform recipients of
the ability and means to avoid future unsolicited advertisements.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500 per TCPA violation
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(3)(B), and treble damages of
up to $1,500 per TCPA violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section
227(a)(3).  It limits the class to all persons in the United
States who were sent unsolicited faxes on or after four years
prior to the filing of the action.

On Sept. 18, 2017, Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative
Defenses, in which they asserted several affirmative defenses.
The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike four of those
affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  The Defendants have not responded to the
motion.

In their first affirmative defense, the Defendants assert that
the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  The Plaintiff argues that this defense should be
stricken because it is not actually an affirmative defense but is
rather a defense that asserts a defect in the Plaintiff's prima
facie case.  Regardless of whether this is an affirmative
defense, however, Judge Mensah finds that the Plaintiff has not
shown that its inclusion in the pleadings prejudices it in any
way.  She finds no reason to believe that such prejudice would
exist.  Thus, the motion to strike this affirmative defense will
be denied.

In their second affirmative defense, the Defendants assert that
the Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, as a
result of its failure to use reasonable means to mitigate or
prevent damages.  As Plaintiff points out, courts in several
other cases (including three recent cases in this district) have
stricken failure-to-mitigate defenses on the ground that that the
recipients of unsolicited faxed advertisements have no duty to
mitigate damages.  The Judge finds that the Defendants provide no
basis for distinguishing the cases and offer no argument for why
a failure to mitigate damages might succeed in the case.  Thus,
she finds that the failure to mitigate defense cannot succeed in
the case, and the motion to strike this affirmative defense will
be granted.

In their fourteenth affirmative defense, the Defendants assert
that the Plaintiff's and the putative class members' claims are
or may be barred by applicable statutes of limitations.  The
Plaintiff argues that this defense is insufficient as a matter of
law and should be stricken, because TCPA claims are subject to a
four-year statute of limitations and it is seeking damages only
for faxes sent after four years prior to the date of the filing
of the action.  Judge Mensah finds that the Defendants have
offered nothing to dispute that the four-year statute of
limitations applies to the claims in the case and have offered no
explanation for how the statute of limitations might bar the
claims in the case.  Shert finds that this defense is
insufficient as a matter of law, and the motion to strike this
affirmative defense will be granted.

Finally, in their third affirmative defense, the Defendants
assert that the Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in
part, by the doctrines of unclean hands, waiver, laches,
acquiescence, estoppel, and/or estoppel in pais.  The Plaintiff
argues that this defense should be stricken, or in the
alternative should be made more definite, because it does not
comply with the pleading standards articulated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which require a
complaint to contain sufficient facts to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face -- that is, sufficient facts to
allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Based on the differences in language between the part of Rule 8
that the Supreme Court relied on in Twombly and Iqbal and the
parts of Rule 8 that apply to affirmative defenses, along with
the fairness concerns that would arise if defendants were
required to plead specific facts in an affirmative defense in
short time frame, the Judge finds that the pleading standards
articulated in Twombly and Iqbal do not apply to affirmative
defenses.  Because the Plaintiff does not state any other basis
for striking this affirmative defense or for requesting a more
definite statement of this defense, the motion will be denied
with respect to this defense.

For all of these reasons, Judge Mensah granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative
Defenses.  With respect to Affirmative Defense Number 2 and
Affirmative Defense Number 14, the motion is granted.  With
respect to Affirmative Defense Number 1 and Affirmative Defense
Number 3, the motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/jV7kr9 from Leagle.com.

Swinter Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz --
rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. &
Ronald J. Eisenberg --reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Nationwide Truckers' Insurance Agency, Inc., doing business as
Nationwide Truckers' Insurance Agency, Inc. doing business as
NTIA, Inc., Nationwide Truckers' Permit Service, Inc., doing
business as Nationwide Truckers Permit Service, Inc. doing
business as NTPS, Inc. & Mary Etta Spitler-Seger, also known as
Mary E. Spitler, Defendants, represented by Todd A. Lubben --
tlubben@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Student Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Halleman, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that student
loan provider Navient has filed a motion to dismiss a federal
lawsuit brought by the state of Pennsylvania, calling it a
copycat lawsuit that is "pointless" and legally deficient.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro brought the lawsuit on
behalf of the State against Navient, which services more than six
million student loans nationally.

In the Dec. 22 motion to dismiss, Navient alleges Mr. Shapiro's
lawsuit parrots a complaint filed in January 2017 by the federal
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  In that complaint,
the CFPB alleges Navient violated the Consumer Financial
Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
Regulation V of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Claiming the complaint brought by Shapiro is an "unauthorized
copycat lawsuit," the motion to dismiss states, "this would
unnecessarily burden the courts and parties, and would risk
generating inconsistent rulings across the country."

The motion to dismiss alleges that Shapiro's complaint is
"essentially cut and pasted from the CFPB's long ago filed
complaint."

Once elected, Mr. Shapiro instituted a state version of the CFPB.
He even picked a former member at that federal agency to run his
Consumer Financial Protection Unit.

This isn't the first time Navient has used this language, either.
"Piggyback" was the term it used to describe a class action filed
in the wake of the CFPB lawsuit.

Last year, a federal judge denied the company's motion to dismiss
the CFPB lawsuit, which was joined by the attorneys general of
Illinois and Washington.

In Shapiro's lawsuit, Navient alleges that the state law claims
brought by his office are preempted by federal law.

The motion to dismiss states, "The Higher Education Act expressly
preempts the commonwealth's state law claims regarding federal
loan servicing by barring the enforcement of 'any disclosure
requirements of any state law.'"

The motion to dismiss also states that Shapiro failed to show
that Navient engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices with
regards to student loans.

In the October complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, Mr. Shapiro alleges Navient
engaged in predatory loans by "peddling risky and expensive
subprime loans that they knew or should have known were likely to
default, and while servicing student loans, failed to perform
core servicing duties, thereby causing harm to borrowers and
cosigners."

The complaint also states that, instead of offering counseling to
borrowers geared towards affordable payment plans, Navient
instead led borrowers toward forbearance. [GN]


NEW ENERGY: Payton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Payton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Energy Marketing and
Consulting, Inc. d/b/a New Energy Solar Assessment and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-00229, (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2018), seeks statutory damages
and injunctive relief resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

New Energy is in the business of selling and providing solar
energy services and products. Defendant called Plaintiff using an
automatic telephone dialing system to attempt to sell its
products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Phone Records in "Johnson"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's request to compel discovery in the case,
MICHAEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DANIEL A.
NIGRO, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
City Fire Department, MICHAEL GALA, individually and in his
official capacity as Deputy Chief in the New York City Fire
Department; MICHAEL CURNEEN, individually and in his official
capacity as Captain in the New York City Fire Department, JAKE
LAMONDA, individually and in his official capacity as an employee
of the New York City Fire Department, and JOHN DOE or JANE DOE,
individually and in his or her official capacity as an employee
of the New York City Fire Department, Defendants, Case No. 16
Civ. 6426 (KAM) (VMS) (E.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff brought the action against the Defendants, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging employment discrimination and
retaliation.  Presently before the Court is his motion for an
order compelling discovery, and the parties' joint letter
regarding discovery.

By his motion, the Plaintiff requests that the Defendants be
compelled to produce complete unredacted copies of certain
telephone records for Defendant Curneen's personal cellular
telephone and landline; Defendant Gala's two employee-issued
cellular telephone, home landline, and office landline; Defendant
Lamonda's cellular telephone; and the Battalion 58, Engine 257
and/or Ladder 170 landlines for the period of Jan. 1, 2015
through May 31, 2015.

The Plaintiff was a priority hire firefighter as a result of a
class action lawsuit brought against the New York City Fire
Department alleging racially discriminatory hiring practices.  He
alleges that he was retaliated against under Title VII, 42 U.S.C
Section 2000e-3, and New York City Human Rights Law, and that he
suffered First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C Section 1983
for his membership in and hiring as part of the class.

The Plaintiff claims he was subjected to humiliating tasks,
psychiatric examinations and given failing performance
evaluations without cause.  Most of his claims, and the present
discovery dispute derive primarily from an article published in
the New York Post on May 17, 2015 regarding his alleged
inclination to avoid fighting fires, including an April 2, 2015
three-alarm fire.  In the Article, the Plaintiff is described as
lazy, "slow and a danger."  His medical leave record was
revealed, and the Article claimed that he was scared of fires and
"flees" from them.  The Article quoted several FDNY "sources."

As part of discovery, the Plaintiff requested executed
authorizations to access the telephone records for the work,
cellular and personal telephones of Defendants Gala and Cureen,
as well as telephone numbers used by Battalion 58, Engine 257
and/or Ladder 170 for the period of Jan. 1, 2015 through May 31,
2015.  In response, the Defendants revealed that Defendant Gala
owned two employee-issued cellular telephones, a home landline,
and office landline.  The Plaintiff additionally requested
records for the same period for Defendant Lamonda's cellular
telephone.  The Defendants objected to these requests, and they
refused to turn over telephone records, claiming that the records
were "not relevant" and private.

After a conference before the Court, the Defendants agreed to
search the Requested Telephone Records for the entire time
period, from Jan. 1, 2015 through May 31, 2015.  The Plaintiff
provided several ingoing or outgoing telephone numbers that were
potentially contained in the Requested Telephone Records;
however, he made clear that he was not limiting his request only
to those Requested Telephone Records relating to the provided
telephone numbers.  The Defendants produced records only for the
telephone numbers provided by the Plaintiff, failing to include
records for other incoming or outgoing telephone numbers that
were not identified by the Plaintiff but which may have been
responsive to the Plaintiff's discovery demand.

The Magistrate Judge finds that production of the Requested
Telephone Records does not run afoul of any privacy
considerations.  Although the Defendants have asserted that the
production of the Requested Telephone Records is an invasion of
their personal privacy, he finds this argument to be conclusory
and lacking good cause or claims of privilege as required by
Federal and Local Rules.

In addition, the City has cited no authority -- and the
Magistrate Judge has found none -- upholding a party's right to
redact from admittedly responsive and relevant documents
information based on that party's unilateral determinations of
relevancy.  In order to redact for privacy, the Defendants would
have to show good cause, which they have failed to do.

Magistrate Judge Scanlon granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to compel.  The Defendants are ordered to
produce the unredacted telephone records for Defendant Curneen's
personal cellular telephone and landline, Defendant Gala's two
employee-issued cellular telephones, home landline, and office
landline, Defendant Lamonda's cellular telephone, and the
Battalion 58, Engine 257 and/or Ladder 170 landlines from the
period of March 1, 2015 to May 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff within
30 days of the Memorandum & Order.  In the alternative, the
Defendants can provide releases for these records within five
days of the date of the Memorandum & Order.  These records may be
designated as confidential by the Defendants, and, if so, the
Plaintiff must treat them as confidential material.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/hVzaq7 from Leagle.com.

Michael Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by John David Lenoir,
Peter Joseph Gleason, Peter J. Gleason, PC & Nathaniel B. Smith,
Law Office of Nathaniel B. Smith.

City of New York, Daniel A. Nigro, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, Michael Gala,
individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Chief in the
New York City Fire Department & Michael Curneen, individually and
in his official capacity as Captain in the New York City Fire
Department, Defendants, represented by Heather Marie Martone, NYC
Law Department & Monica M. Pogula, New York City Law Department.

Jake Lamonda, individually and in his official capacity as
employee of the New York City Fire Department, Defendant,
represented by Seth H. Greenberg -- sgreenberg@gbglawoffice.com -
- Greenberg Burzichelli Greenberg P.C.


NISSAN OF BRANDON: Arbitration Ruling in "Lowe" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLINDA LOWE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. NISSAN OF BRANDON, INC., d/b/a
AUTONATION NISSAN BRANDON, a Florida corporation, Appellee, Case
No. 2D17-1104 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Anthony K. Black of the
District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District
affirmed the circuit court's order compelling Ms. Lowe to
arbitrate her claims against Nissan.

As relevant to the appeal, Ms. Lowe executed three separate
documents when she purchased her vehicle from Nissan of Brandon:
a Retail Purchase Agreement, a Retail Installment Sale Contract,
and an Arbitration Agreement.  Her complaint was filed as a class
action; she alleged, in pertinent part, that Nissan's inclusion
of $98.75 in the purchase price of the vehicle -- itemized on the
Purchase Agreement as a "Tag Agency/Electronic Filing Fee" --
violates Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and
that the Fee constitutes unjust enrichment.  The Purchase
Agreement included a specific line-item charge for the Fee, and
Ms. Lowe alleged that the Installment Contract included the Fee
in the line-item "Cash Price" for the vehicle.  Her claims are
solely based upon the $98.75 Fee.

The Purchase Agreement provides that the Agreement means the
Purchase Agreement together with any documents, incorporated into
the Agreement by reference, whether such reference is made in the
Agreement or the document itself.  Further, paragraph ten
expressly incorporates the Arbitration Agreement which provides
that is she has executed an Arbitration Agreement in conjunction
with the Agreement, such Arbitration Agreement will be
incorporated in the Agreement by reference and made a part of the
Agreement.

The pertinent terms of the Installment Contract include that the
"Seller-Creditor" is Nissan and the merger clause.  The contract
contains the entire agreement between her and Nissan relating to
the contract.  It also provides that if Nissan is unable to
assign the contract within the time period stated to assign the
contract to any one of the financial institutions with whom it
regularly does business under an assignment acceptable to it,
Nissan may cancel the contract.

The third pertinent document executed by Ms. Lowe was the
Arbitration Agreement.  By its terms, the Arbitration Agreement
applies to "customers" who purchase a vehicle.  It defines
"customer/dealership dealings" as reviewing, negotiation or
executing any documents or agreement during the course of
interactions with the dealership.  It also provides that
arbitration will be the sole method of resolving any claim,
dispute, or controversy ("claims") that either party has arising
from Customer/Dealership Dealings.  It then presents five
groupings of claims to which arbitration applies.  Finally, the
Arbitration Agreement states that it is entered into
contemporaneously with your Retail Installment Sale Contract.

Upon being served with Ms. Lowe's complaint, Nissan filed a
motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case, contending
that the Arbitration Agreement controlled Ms. Lowe's claims.  The
court held a hearing and ultimately entered an order granting the
motion to compel arbitration and staying the court case.  The
circuit court found that the agreements and documents signed at
or near the same time and as part of the same transaction should
be read and construed together.

Lowe challenges the circuit court's order compelling her to
arbitrate her claims against Nissan.  She contends that the
merger clause in the Installment Contract necessitates that the
Installment Contract is the controlling document and that because
the Installment Contract does not reference arbitration or
incorporate any document by reference, there is no agreement to
arbitrate her claims.  She contends that two cases are directly
on point and require reversal: HHH Motors, LLP v. Holt, and Duval
Motors Co. v. Rogers.  Both cases involve vehicle purchases and
multiple, contemporaneously executed documents.

Judge Black finds that given the terms of the Purchase Agreement
and the Installment Contract and the claims raised by Ms. Lowe,
the controlling document is the Purchase Agreement.  He says the
merger clause in the Installment Contract applies to financing
claims not to claims which rest upon terms in the Purchase
Agreement.  The Purchase Agreement and its incorporation of the
Arbitration Agreement control.  To the extent that the First
District's decisions in HHH Motors and Duval Motors conflict with
his conclusion, he certifies conflict with those decisions.  For
these reasons, the Judge affirmed and certified conflict with
existing cases addressing similar issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/oujhzB from Leagle.com.

Brian W. Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- of Varnell
& Warwick, P.A., Lady Lake; and William C. Bielecky --
info@bieleckylaw.com -- of William C. Bielecky, P.A.,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Moises Melendez -- moises.melendez@gray-robinson.com -- of
GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale; and Richard A. Ivers of Law
Offices of Richard A. Ivers -- richard@iverslawfirm.com -- Coral
Springs, for Appellee.



OCALA, FL: Class Certification Denial in Discount Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DISCOUNT SLEEP OF OCALA, LLC D/B/A MATTRESS
WAREHOUSE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED OTHERS, AND DALE W, BIRCH, INDIVIDUALLY,
ETC., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 5D17-497 (Fla. Dist. App.),
Judge Richard B. Orfinger of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Fifth District reversed the trial court's order
denying the Appellants' motion for class certification.

The case concerns the City's imposition of a fire service user
fee charged to customers of its city-owned utility.  Since 2006,
the City has enacted several ordinances that established,
repealed, and later reinstated the fire service user fees.

In 2014, the Appellants filed a class action lawsuit against the
City, challenging the validity of Ordinance 2010-43, which
repealed an earlier ordinance and reinstated the previously
repealed fire service fees.  The trial court dismissed their
original complaint with prejudice based on the statute of
limitations.  The Court reversed the order of dismissal,
concluding that the Appellants' complaint was timely filed.

On remand, the Appellants filed a second amended complaint,
seeking a declaration that the fire service user fee enacted by
the City and collected from them and all other City utility
customers as part of the monthly utility bill is invalid,
illegal, and unconstitutional.  They further asked the court to
order the City to refund the fees collected.

The Appellants also filed a second motion for class
certification, which the trial court denied after conducting an
evidentiary hearing.  The trial court concluded that the
Appellants lacked standing to represent the putative class
members, and that the class could not be certified because
Appellants failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and
adequacy prongs of the class certification test.  The trial court
further found that the Appellants failed to prove that common
issues predominated over individual questions and that a class
action was the superior means of adjudicating the controversy.

Judge Orfinger disagrees with the trial court.  He concludes that
the trial court erred by denying the Appellants' motion for class
certification.  He holds that the trial court erred in
determining that the class should not be certified because the
class could not include members who paid the fire service user
fee but who are no longer required to do so.  He says even if a
customer no longer pays the fire service user fee, the customer
would still be able to be part of the class, or subclass, if the
customer paid the fire service user fee during the relevant time
period.  Those members suffered the same injury, i.e., their
payment of the allegedly invalid fire service user fee; their
injury is concrete and particularized; and their injury would be
redressed by the requested refund.  The Judge further holds that
the Appellants established standing as well as sufficiently met
all of the requirements set forth in rule 1.220.

For these reasons, Judge Orfinger reversed and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/hMVDFh from Leagle.com.

Derek A. Schroth, James A. Myers and Sasha O. Garcia, of
Bowen/Schroth, Eustis, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

George Franjola and Patrick G. Gilligan, of Gilligan, Gooding,
Franjola & Batsel, P.A., Ocala, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


OGLETREE DEAKINS: Female Shareholders File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart was hit with a proposed class action
accusing the Atlanta-based employment law firm of operating an
"old boys' club" that systematically underpays female
shareholders and denies them the same opportunities as their male
colleagues.

Dawn Knepper, a non-equity shareholder in the firm's Orange
County office, filed a lawsuit on Jan. 12 in San Francisco
federal court alleging the firm violated state and federal anti-
bias laws by giving men credit for women's client development
work, saddling women with less-valued tasks and holding them to a
higher standard for promotions than men.  Ms. Knepper is
represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp. [GN]


OHIO: "Falls-Bey" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY FALLS-BEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN, BRIAN
COOK, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-1103 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis and for an initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A(a).

The Magistrate Judge ordered that the Plaintiff is assessed the
full amount of the Court's $350 filing fee.  The Plaintiff's
supporting documents reveal that he currently possesses an
insufficient amount to pay the full filing fee.  The Magistrate
Judge directed the custodian of the Plaintiff's inmate trust
account at the institution of his residence to submit to the
Clerk of the Court, as an initial partial payment, 20% of the
greater of either the average monthly deposits to the inmate
trust account or the average monthly balance in the inmate trust
account for the six months immediately preceding the filing of
the complaint.  He says that if the Plaintiff does not currently
possess the funds to pay the initial filing fee, the amount
assessed will be collected from the Plaintiff's account when such
funds become available.

Once the initial partial filing fee is paid, the custodian will
submit 20% of the inmate's preceding monthly income credited to
the account if, during that month, the balance of that account
exceeds $10, until the full fee of $350 has been paid.  If the
Plaintiff is transferred to another prison, the custodian should
forward the Order to that institution so that the new custodian
of the Plaintiff's account can collect and remit the monthly
partial payment.

Checks are to be made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court
Checks are to be sent to: Prisoner Accounts Receivable Joseph P.
Kinneary United States Courthouse Room 121 85 Marconi Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215.  The prisoner's name and case number must be
noted on each remittance.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Jolson ordered that the Plaintiff
be allowed to prosecute his action without prepayment of fees or
costs and that judicial officers who render services in the
action will do so as if the costs had been prepaid.  He directed
the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff
and the prison cashier's office. The Clerk is further directed to
forward a copy of the Order to the Court's financial office in
Columbus.

The Magistrate Judge is unable to address the merits of the
Plaintiff's individualized claim because he attempts to bring the
case as a class action.  The Sixth Circuit has made clear that
prisoners proceeding pro se may not represent other prisoners in
federal court.  Thus, the Plaintiff may pursue only his
individualized claim in the case.  Therefore, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that all the purported Plaintiffs, other than
the Plaintiff, Falls-Bey, be dismissed from the action.

Because the class allegations in the complaint are pervasive, the
Court is unable to decipher the Plaintiff's individualized claim.
As such, the Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint
consistent with the Order.  The amended complaint must be filed
within 30 days or the case may be dismissed.  The Court will
conduct an initial screening of the Plaintiff's individualized
claim upon receipt of the amended complaint.  If this matter
proceeds, the Court will then direct service of summons and
complaint on the Defendants.

If any party objects to the Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within 14 days of the date of the Report, file and serve on
all parties written objections to those specific proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together
with supporting authority for the objection(s).  A Judge of the
Court will make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.  Upon proper objections, a Judge of the Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made, may receive further evidence or may
recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

Any party may, within 14 days after the Order is filed, file and
serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a
District Judge.  Responses to objections are due 14 days after
objections are filed and replies by the objecting party are due
seven days thereafter.  The District Judge, upon consideration of
the motion, will set aside any part of the Order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Report and
Recommendation and Order is available at https://is.gd/iScOv1
from Leagle.com.

Roy Falls-Bey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

David Hodges-Bey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ericulo Henderson-El, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Dayron McCombs-Bey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Derron Felder-Bey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jeremy Prude-Bey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Erkins Ethan-El, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


PALABORA MINING: Irate Mine Workers Take PMC to Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Sizwe sama Yende, writing for News24, reports that more than
3,000 former mine workers have launched a class action against a
liquidator they accuse of being secretive about the R421.9m
surplus accrued from their pension fund.

The former workers of Palabora Mining Company (PMC) in
Phalaborwa, Limpopo, have been fighting for at least 12 years to
get their money after PMC's pension fund was liquidated in 2005.

The gist of the copper mine workers' claim is that the fund's
liquidator, Garth Barnard, who was appointed by the Registrar of
Pension Funds, has not been transparent about the amount of
surplus accrued, nor about how and when it will be distributed.

Tolie Mnisi (75), the chairperson of the Palabora Pensioners'
Forum, said 3 133 former employees had come forward to claim what
they are owed.

He said 673 employees had died without seeing a cent of this
money while the forum tried in vain to claim the money on their
behalf.

Mnisi worked in the copper mine for 24 years and took early
retirement in December 1998.

"Some of us retired, some were retrenched and some resigned, but
the fund did not pay us the surplus," he said.

He said he got R68 000 when he retired and was told he would get
the rest of his money when he reached retirement age.

"They did not call me back. That's why we've been fighting."

In his affidavit in the Pretoria High Court, Mnisi said he wanted
the court to review and set aside the calculation performed by
Barnard, and that he must be ordered to recalculate the benefits
to be paid to the beneficiaries.

"In protest to the manner in which the calculations have been
performed, we have thus far refused to provide our banking
details to the liquidator or to collect cheques for our
benefits," he said.

"The course of action we intend to pursue is to review and set
aside the calculation performed by the liquidator, to order the
liquidator to recalculate the benefits and for the liquidator to
pay the recalculated benefits to members of the class action,"
Mnisi added.

The PMC decided to liquidate the fund following the introduction
of the Pension Funds Second Amendment Act, which is aimed at
ensuring that surpluses of pension funds are allocated equally to
beneficiaries.

A surplus on a pension fund happens when the fund accumulates
extra money after all expenses have been paid.

In an effort to reach funds liquidator Barnard, City Press
contacted Financial Services Board (FSB) spokesperson Tembisa
Marele, who did not respond to written questions.

The Registrar of Pension Funds falls under the FSB. [GN]


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:PYPL) of the February 5, 2018 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in PayPal stock or options between February 14,
2017 and December 1, 2017 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/PYPL.There is no cost or
obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

         CONTACT:
         Attn:  Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased PayPal common stock between February 14, 2017 and
December 1, 2017 (the "Class Period").  The case, Sgarlata v.
PayPal, Holdings, Inc. et al, No. 3:17-cv-06956 was filed on
December 6, 2017.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TIO
Networks Corporation ("TIO"), a bill-pay management company
acquired by PayPal in July 2017 was unable to safeguard personal
information of its users; (2) the vulnerabilities threatened
operation of TIO's platform; (3) Thus, PayPal's revenues from its
TIO services were unsustainable; (4) consequently, PayPal had
overstated the benefits of the TIO acquisition; and (5) as a
result, PayPal's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Specifically, on November 10, 2017 PayPal suspended TIO services
stating that it had discovered security vulnerabilities on the
TIO platform. Then on December 1, 2017, PayPal disclosed that
personal information including names, social security numbers,
addresses, and bank account details for roughly 1.6 million TIO
users had potentially been compromised because of the previously
announced security vulnerabilities.

After the announcement, PayPal's share price fell from $75.30 per
share on December 1, 2017 to a closing price of $70.97 on
December 4, 2017 -- a $4.33 or a 5.75% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class. 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. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding PayPal's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


PICK-A-PART: $195K Settlement in "Torres" Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIRENA TORRES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PICK-A-PART AUTO WRECKING
(d/b/a Pick-A-Part); and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01915-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On Dec. 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Pick-A-Part and Does 1 through 10, alleging that the
Defendants violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA"), which provides in relevant part that no person that
accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of
business will print the expiration date upon any receipt provided
to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.

For several years and ending on Jan. 31, 2016, Pick-A-Part
operated a motor vehicle wrecking and recycling facility, whose
business included maintaining an inventory of used vehicles, from
which retail customers could dismantle parts to purchase.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated FACTA by
printing the expiration date on receipts provided to credit card
and debit card cardholders transacting business with defendant.

On Oct. 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.  She seeks to
represent a class, certified for the purposes of settlement only,
composed of all consumers who, at any time during the period Dec.
22, 2014 to Oct. 28, 2015, were provided an electronically
printed receipt at the point of a sale or transaction at Pick-A-
Part (located at 2274 E. Muscat Avenue, Fresno, CA 93725), on
which receipt was printed the expiration date of the consumer's
credit card or debit card.

The Plaintiff seeks an order: (i) certifying the settlement
class, with appointment of the Plaintiff as the class
representative, appointment of attorney Chant Yedalian as the
class counsel, and appointment of Atticus Administration, LLC as
the settlement administrator; (ii) preliminarily approving the
settlement agreement; (iii) approving the proposed form and
method of notice to the settlement class; and (iv) scheduling the
hearing date for the final approval of the class settlement.

The proposed settlement provides that Pick-A-Part will establish
a non-reversionary cash fund in the amount of $195,000, from
which the class counsel's attorney's fees and costs, an incentive
payment to the class representative, and administration costs
will be paid.  It provides for the payment of attorney's fees and
costs of up to $65,000, plus an award of the class counsel's
litigation costs of up to $3,000.  The settlement provides that
the class representative will receive an incentive payment of up
to $4,000.  The Plaintiff further estimates that administration
costs will be approximately $12,000.

The remaining funds will be divided by the total number of class
members who submit a valid and timely claim, but not to exceed
$250 per class member.  Each class member may only submit one
claim, regardless of how many credit or debit card transactions
he or she engaged in with the Defendant during the settlement
class period.  The proposed settlement provides no reversion to
Pick-A-Part; any residual funds would be given cy pres to Legal
Assistance for Seniors.

The Plaintiff proposes the following implementation schedule:

     a. Deadline for defendant to establish non-reversionary cash
fund - No later than three business days after the court enters
an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement

     b. Publication of newspaper notice (x3) - Within 20 days
after the court's preliminary approval of the settlement; within
30 days of the first date; and within 70 days of the first date
the Settlement Administrator will provide the full preliminary
notice of settlement website; Within 10 days after the court's
approval of the settlement

     c. Deadline for the settlement class members to submit a
claim form - Within 180 days from the date full notice is posted
on the settlement website

     d. Deadline for the settlement class members to 60 days
after the first date of posting the full object to or opt out of
the settlement notice to the settlement website

     e. Deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for final
approval of the settlement and a motion for an award of
attorney's fees and costs and for the class representative's
incentive award - At least 30 days before the final fairness
hearing

     f. Deadline for the settlement class members to object to
the class counsel's motion for an award of attorney's fees and
costs and/or the class representative's motion for incentive
award - 21 days before the final fairness hearing

     g. Deadline for settlement class members to file a Notice of
Intention to Appear at the fairness hearing - if the appearance
concerns the class counsel's motion for an award of attorney's
fees and costs and/or the class representative's motion for
incentive award, no later than 21 calendar days before the final
fairness hearing; no later than 60 calendar days after the first
date of posting the full notice for any other matter concerning
the settlement agreement

     h. Distribution of settlement checks - Beginning no earlier
than 30 days after the settlement date; and ending no later than
60 days after the last day to submit claims or the settlement
date, whichever is later Settlement Administrator will issue
checks to Within 10 days of the settlement date class counsel and
the class representative

Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement and approved the preliminary
class certification under Rule 23.  He appointed the Plaintiff's
counsel, Chant Yedalian, as the class counsel; Named Plaintiff,
Cirena Torres, as the class representative; and Atticus
Administration, LLC as the claims administrator.  He further
approved the proposed notice and claim form that conform with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Judge approved the proposed settlement detailed on a
preliminary basis.  The hearing for final approval of the
proposed settlement is set for July 17, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., with
the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be
filed 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in
accordance with Local Rule 230.  He adopted the Plaintiff's
proposed settlement implementation schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jkGAld from Leagle.com.

Cirena Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- Chant & Company.

Pick-A-Part Auto Wrecking, Doing business as Pick-A-Part,
Defendant, represented by Ted A. Galfin -- tgalfin@galfinlaw.com
-- Law Offices Of Ted A. Galfin.


PORTLAND, OR: Police Deny 'Kettling' Protesters
-----------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for Citizen Tribune, reports that
Portland police admit that they corralled a throng of marchers
last year, took their photos and demanded their IDs, but say they
moved in only after people ignored repeated announcements by
officers to leave or because they needed to investigate
disorderly conduct.

The officers' actions were lawful, the city said in a response to
a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in
November.

The federal class-action lawsuit argues the opposite, that police
violated the civil liberties of 200 to 250 demonstrators by
"kettling" them -- surrounding them and detaining them -- without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion during a tense series of
protests June 4.

Police also denied the ACLU claim that Mayor Ted Wheeler
"ordered, directed or approved any actions" of police during the
protest, though the city acknowledged that Wheeler was at the
police command center at times that day.

The June 4 showdown began when conservative group Patriot Prayer
got a permit to demonstrate in Terry Shrunk Plaza near City Hall
and drew counter-protests. Police tried to separate the groups.
Near the end, officers held a large gathering of people at a
downtown street corner.

Police conceded in their response that officers made a mistake
that day when announcing a command over their sound truck for
people on Southwest Fourth Avenue, between Morrison and Alder
streets, to disperse after officers tried to clear out and shut
down Chapman Square, across from Terry Shrunk Plaza.

Some people in the square began throwing bricks, water bottles,
bags of marbles and balloons "filled with foul-smelling
substances," William Manlove, senior deputy city attorney, wrote
in the response.

According to the ACLU's lawsuit, police ordered protesters in
that area to leave, but then surrounded them, causing confusion.

But police said they followed up their mistaken command with
repeated announcements, warning that people would be detained to
investigate disorderly conduct, Manlove wrote.

The ACLU suit alleged that police fired pepper-spray balls at
several protesters as they tried to leave the area through the
parking garage on Fourth Avenue.

Manlove said Oregon State Police, who were helping out Portland
police, fired pepper-spray balls toward the parking garage
because people "were advancing up the garage, into a position
where projectiles could be thrown, putting the public and police
officers at risk."

Police said officers have used tear gas, pepper spray and rubber
ball distraction devices during some protests. They also have
allowed officers to use "non-lethal force" without warning in
response to specific threats, Manlove wrote.

While the city denied a policy or practice of "kettling"
protesters, the bureau acknowledged other times they have
detained demonstrators in mass.

In November 2014, when people were protesting a grand jury
decision not to indict a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in
the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man.
Police said the demonstrators remained in a public street.

On Jan. 20, 2017, when officers arrested about 38 people during a
demonstration against the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
Police said they "continued to march and protest in the street"
despite commands to disperse.

The ACLU's lawsuit argues that police acted in both of those
cases without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

While Portland frequently is the stage for public marches and
protests, some have erupted in violence and illegal behavior, the
city noted.

"Violent and unlawful marches and gatherings have no legal
protection under the First Amendment, the Oregon Constitution or
federal or state law," Manlove wrote.

Mat dos Santos, legal director of the ACLU of Oregon, called the
city's response "absurd." He noted that many people witnessed
officers surround and detain protesters in a "kettle" on June 4.
He said the city will be hard-pressed to show officers had
individualized suspicion that 200 to 250 people detained in the
street that day were breaking the law, as the city contends.

"While we are disappointed in the City's disingenuous response,
we remain steadfast in our belief that our clients will be
vindicated," dos Santos said. "We'll see them in court."

Portland's new Police Chief Danielle Outlaw told The
Oregonian/OregonLive in October when she first started that she
wanted to go through the bureau's training on crowd control
herself before she passed judgment on how police have handled
city protests.

"I haven't had a chance to do a critical review of past
incidents. That's certainly on my radar," she said then. "Bottom
line is we're here to protect people's First Amendment right to
free speech." [GN]


PTZ INSURANCE: Davis & Gilbert Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc J. Rachman, Esq., and David S. Greenberg, Esq. --
dgreenberg@dglaw.com -- of Davis & Gilbert, in an article for
Mondaq, wrote that is a class action lawsuit appropriate when
some class members have consented to the defendant's conduct, but
have not given that consent in the manner the law requires?
According to at least one federal judge, the answer to that
question is "no."

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has become notorious
among businesses that rely on ongoing telephonic contact with
their large customer bases.  Originally enacted in 1991 with the
purpose of deterring telemarketing, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the courts have expanded the reach of the
law over time to prohibit automated dialing or messaging for
almost any purpose, particularly to mobile phones.  With the
significant restrictions it imposes, and the statutory penalties
it prescribes for each violation, ranging from $500 to $1,500 per
violation, class actions under the TCPA have steadily increased
in stakes over the past several years.  A TCPA suit is the
nightmare of many a CEO, given the "bet-the-company" liability
that could potentially be involved in such a litigation.

As the TCPA has continued to gain popularity over the past
several years -- even as more and more people use their mobile
phones exclusively -- many have wondered whether the FCC, the
courts or even Congress would take action to limit or better
define the scope of the TCPA. Companies have had some success in
defeating class certification on the basis that the question of
consumer consent to be called or texted can only be determined on
an individualized basis.  A recent decision from a federal court
in Illinois takes this defense a step further.

Background
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties seeking
class-wide damages must demonstrate two key elements, among
others:

  -- the existence of questions of law or fact common to all
class members; and

   -- the predominance of those common questions over
individualized issues, such that a class action is a superior
method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the matter at issue.

Under the TCPA, a consumer's consent to be called can constitute
a complete defense to liability, and TCPA defendants have long
argued that determining whether each individual consumer
consented to be called or not makes class-wide resolution of TCPA
claims infeasible.  Defendants making this argument have met
mixed results, with some courts accepting this defense to class
certification, while others finding that circumstances made this
issue capable of class-wide proof.

In the case of calls or texts transmitted for telemarketing or
advertising purposes, the most recent TCPA regulations
promulgated by the FCC require the consumer's prior express
written consent before an automatically dialed call or text may
be sent to that consumer.  TCPA plaintiffs have argued that where
the calls they complained of are telemarketing or advertising-
related calls, the advertiser's failure to adhere to the TCPA's
requirement of formal written consent fundamentally enables
class-wide proof.  This was the issue presented to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Form over Substance: Lack of Consent in Writing May Not Amount to
Concrete Harm

In Legg v. PTZ Insurance Agency (Legg), the plaintiffs alleged
that they received advertising robocalls from a company that
offered pet health insurance, reminding them to collect on 30
free days of health insurance that they had received for adopting
a pet from an animal shelter.  The evidence in the case
demonstrated that although the putative class members had
voluntarily given their phone numbers to the shelters during the
adoption process after being advised that their information would
be shared with third parties, and some had even verbally
consented to receive calls, none of them had provided written
consent in the form the TCPA and FCC regulations required.  The
plaintiffs argued that given the undisputed lack of prior express
written consent, the consent issue could be determined on a
class-wide basis.

The defendant -- and the court -- disagreed.  Citing Spokeo v.
Robins, a landmark 2016 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete,
particularized injury in order to bring a lawsuit in federal
court, the Illinois federal judge held that any proposed class
member who had orally consented to receive calls had suffered no
injury under the TCPA, which was designed to prevent only
unsolicited calls.  The defendant's failure to adhere to the
TCPA's technical requirements as to the form of consent was not
enough to create actionable harm.  Therefore, individual mini
trials would have been required to determine which individuals
had standing to be class members and which ones did not.  Holding
that this issue would predominate over others in the case, the
court denied class certification.

Conclusion

The decision in Legg may represent a growing willingness by
courts to take a more pragmatic approach to class action claims
brought under the TCPA, looking beyond the technical requirements
under the TCPA and focusing more on the goal it was designed to
accomplish, examining whether the manner in which the TCPA is
being invoked is truly serving its purpose. [GN]


PULTE HOMES: Tenn. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Robinson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES M. ROBINSON, ET AL., v. PULTE HOMES TENNESSEE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. M2016-01208-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.),
Judge Andy T. Bennett of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at
Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision granting Pulte
Homes summary judgment.

James M. Robinson and Martha P. Robinson purchased an interest in
an unimproved parcel of real property from Howard W. Lipman in
June 2005.  Mr. Lipman had acquired his interest in the property
described as "Lot 3" or as "Unit 3" from Pulte Homes in July
2000.

The warranty deed from Mr. Lipman to the Robinsons included
essentially the same description of Unit No. 3 and described it
as the same property conveyed to Howard W. Lipman by deed dated
July 28, 2000, that was recorded in the Wilson County Register's
Office.  The Master Deed referenced in Pulte Homes' deed to Mr.
Lipman was dated Aug. 31, 1988, and it established the Beacon
Hill Village Condominium.  The Master Deed provided that Beacon
Hill Village Condominium Association, Inc. would be in charge of
the Condominium's operation.

Included within the "Additional Land" of Beacon Hill Village was
a section of real property referred to as "Phase III of Beacon
Hill Village," which encompassed the property at issue, Unit 3.
Pulte Homes acquired title to the Additional Land in February
1999.  Pulte Homes and the Association entered into an agreement
whereby Pulte Homes was to develop and construct 40 attached and
10 detached condominium units and incorporate them within the
Master Deed.  Lot 3 is one of the detached units that Pulte Homes
sold to Mr. Lipman in July 2000.

The Robinsons knew before they purchased Unit 3 that it was part
of Phase III of Beacon Hill Village, which was governed by the
Condominium Association. They knew they would be required to pay
fees, assessments, and dues to the Association and that the
architectural review committee would have to approve the design
of the house they planned to construct.  However, the Robinsons
also believed that they were purchasing a fee simple interest in
the land and house they were planning to build rather than merely
in the interior space of their future house.

In October 2011, Alex and Kathryn Stillwell, who were the owners
of Unit 2, filed a class action against the Association, Pulte
Homes, and the Wilson County Planning Commission asserting claims
for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on behalf of
themselves and the other owners of the nine detached units in
Phase III.  The Robinsons were members of the class.  In the
Stillwell action, the plaintiffs alleged that they were fee
simple owners of the detached units of Phase III and asked the
court to declare that their properties were "private elements,"
as that term is defined in the Horizontal Property Act.

The trial court denied the plaintiffs' requested relief and held
on Dec. 9, 2009, that the detached units, including Unit 3, were
properly classified as condominiums and were not private
elements.  The trial court ordered Pulte Homes to record with the
Wilson County Register of Deeds its agreement with the
Association whereby Phase III was made a part of Beacon Hill
Village Condominiums and declared the following: (i) Phase III of
Beacon Hill Village will be and is declared to be part of the
Beacon Hill Village condominium project and the Association; (ii)
the nine detached units will be and hereby are declared and
deemed to be condominiums located within the Beacon Hill Village
condominiums project; ad (iii) the nine detached units and their
building envelopes will be and hereby are declared and deemed to
not be private elements.

The plaintiff class filed a motion to alter or amend the
judgment.  The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter
or amend, and the plaintiffs did not appeal the trial court's
judgment.

On Feb. 1, 2013, more than four years following the Stillwell
decision, the Robinsons filed the instant lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of themselves and all other Phase III owners.
The Robinsons named Pulte Homes as the sole Defendant and
asserted that it was liable for breach of warranty of title.
They alleged that the Stillwell judgment resulted in their
"eviction" from fee simple ownership of their property, Lot 3.
As relief, the Robinsons requested damages for the economic
property loss resulting from Phase III Owners not having fee
simple ownership of their individual parcel of land within BHV-
Phase III.

Pulte Homes filed an answer followed by a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. The record does not reflect whether the trial
court issued a ruling on this motion.  The Robinsons moved for
class certification, which the trial court denied.  The Robinsons
then filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which they
asked the court to rule that the ownership interest they acquired
in their deed was a fee simple ownership interest in Lot 3.
Pulte Homes opposed the Robinsons' motion and filed its own
motion for summary judgment.  The trial court granted Pulte
Homes' motion by written order on April 25, 2016.

The Robinsons appeal the trial court's decision granting Pulte
Homes summary judgment.  They contest each ground on which the
trial court based its ruling.  In addition, the Robinsons argue
the trial court erred in ruling that the Phase III Agreement
barred their claim and in denying their request for class
certification.

Judge Bennett concludes that the Robinsons' claim for breach of
warranty of title could have and should have been included as
part of the complaint in the Stillwell action.  Failure to do so
precludes them from raising the claim in a separate action.  As
the Court of Appeals wrote in Penn-America Insurance Co., a
complainant may state a claim against a defendant before the
defendant's contingent liability has become absolute.

The Judge holds that as the trial court found, the agreement
between Pulte Homes and the Association in February 1999
incorporated Phase III of Beacon Hill Village under the Master
Deed.  Pulte Homes transferred a condominium unit to Mr. Lipman,
and Mr. Lipman transferred that same condominium unit to the
Robinsons.  The language of the warranty deed from Pulte Homes to
Mr. Lipman makes clear that Mr. Lipman never owned a fee simple
estate interest in the land and/or building located on Lot 3, as
the Robinsons contend.  As a result, the Robinsons' claim that
they were evicted from a fee simple interest in Lot 3 and their
claim for breach of the covenant of warranty of title cannot be
sustained as a matter of law.

Concluding that the Robinsons' lawsuit is barred by res judicata
and that their claim is barred by estoppel by deed, he finds the
other issues the Robinsons raise on appeal are pretermitted and
need not be addressed.

For these reasons, Judge Bennett affirmed the judgment of the
trial court.  The costs of the appeal will be taxed to the
Appellants, the Robinsons, for which execution will issue if
necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/FRJEFm from Leagle.com.

Dan E. Huffstutter, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants,
James M. Robinson and Martha P. Robinson.

Russell B. Morgan -- rmorgan@bradley.com -- and Frankie Neil
Spero -- fspero@bradley.com -- Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellee, Pulte Homes Tennessee Limited Partnership.


RECONTRUST COMPANY: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Allred" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Utah, Plaintiff-Intervenor, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Allred, et al. v.
ReconTrust Company, N.A., Case No. 2:13-CV-01124-BSJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah - Salt Lake City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Bruce S. Jenkins preliminarily certifying a class of persons for
settlement purposes only:

     All owners of real property in the State of Utah that have
     had their property foreclosed on by the Defendant ReconTrust
     acting as trustee in a foreclosure sale after May 10, 2011,
     who have not already settled claims or litigated claims to a
     final judgment against any Released Person relating to
     ReconTrust having exercised the power of sale.

The appellate case is captioned as Allred, et al. v. ReconTrust
Company, N.A., Case No. 18-4006, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

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

   -- Docketing statement was due on January 26, 2018; and

   -- Transcript order form and notice of appearance were due on
      January 26, 2018, for State of Utah.[BN]

Plaintiff ERIC ALLRED, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Tyler B. Ayres, Esq.
          Daniel Baczynski, Esq.
          Stephen G. Tryon, Esq.
          AYRES LAW FIRM
          12339 South 800 East Suite 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 255-5555
          Facsimile: (801) 255-5588
          E-mail: tyler@ayreslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM
          1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: Borison@legglaw.com

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant STATE OF UTAH and Plaintiff-
Intervenor SEAN D. REYES are represented by:

          Wade A. Farraway, Esq.
          UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          160 East 300 South
          P.O. Box 140857
          Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0857
          Telephone: (801) 366-00310
          Facsimile: (801) 366-00315
          E-mail: wfarraway@utah.gov

               - and -
          Thomas Dibblee Roberts, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF UTAH
          350 North State Street, Suite 230
          P.O. Box 142320
          Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320
          Telephone: (801) 538-9600
          Facsimile: (801) 366-0352
          E-mail: thomroberts@utah.gov

Defendant RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., is represented by:

          Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2018
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
                  mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Robert Scott, Esq.
          Chandler Poole Thompson, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          170 South Main Street, Suite 950
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1648
          Telephone: (801) 907-6900
          E-mail: robert.scott@akerman.com


RICHMOND, KY: Police Leave Policy Violates State Law, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly McKinney, writing for The Richmond Register, reports a
lawsuit filed in December in Madison Circuit Court claims the
city of Richmond's police leave policy is in violation of state
law.

The suit, filed by Lebanon attorney John Elder, Esq. --
jelder@meyercapel.com -- on behalf of RPD officer Kevin Sharp and
others possibly affected, states the city does not give officers
the paid leave in their first year of employment they are
required to receive.

The city's policy is in direct violation of state statute, Elder
said.

The attorney expects the complaint to turn into a class-action
suit. The suit asks the court to order the city to identify all
class members, and to "certify a class of all similarly situation
past and present, active duty and non-active duty," members of
RPD.

Elder said he expects the number of past and present officers
affected to be 35 or more.

The city's policy states that officers are allotted 15 days of
paid annual leave (in addition to 11 days holiday leave, one
personal day and one sick day per month) on Jan. 1 of each year.
However, the policy states the annual leave is not awarded until
after the officer has been employed for a year. The other types
of leave are received the first year (the officer is awarded
holiday leave that corresponds to the remaining state holidays of
that calendar year, is given the one personal day and begins to
accrue one sick day per month employed).

The city also doesn't allow officers to carry over any of the 15
days of leave not used, and does not compensate them for unused
days, the suit alleges.

"That's another major issue," Elder said.

The suit was filed Dec. 1, and notification was received by the
city, according to court records. The city had yet to file an
answer as of January 19 afternoon. Typically, a defendant in a
suit is required to file an answer within 20 days; however, the
city was granted an extension until the end of January.

The relevant statute, KRS.95.495, states each member of the
police department (in second- and third-class cities) shall have
an annual leave of 15 working days with full pay.

Elder reached out to Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear's
office for an opinion on the statute. Beshear's office did not
issue a formal opinion, but responded with a letter stating the
office believes the city's policy is in fact a violation.

"We advise that KRS 95.495 requires police officers in cities of
the second or third class, such as police officer in the Richmond
Police Department, to have an annual leave of 15 working days
each year, including the first year of employment," the
unofficial opinion states.

In response to an inquiry from the attorney general's office,
Richmond city attorney Garrett Fowles, Esq. asserted that paid
holiday leave allotted to new officers can be used on days other
than state holidays, and should be treated as "akin" to annual
leave, the letter from the AG's office states.

The AG's office disagrees because the city's personnel policy
provides the annual leave in addition to the holiday leave to
officers after their first year, the letter states.

Elder said he believes affected officers have a strong case, and
should be awarded the compensation provided to them by law.

"We're excited to protect the rights of officers who serve and
protect us every day," Elder said.

The suit asks for damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney and other fees incurred and a trial by jury.

The city is being represented by the Lexington law firm of
Sturgill, Turner, Barker and Moloney. A call to the firm seeking
comment was not returned before press time.

Richmond Mayor Jim Barnes said when contacted January 17 that he
cannot comment on pending litigation. An email sent January 19 to
city attorney Garrett Fowles seeking comment was not immediately
answered. [GN]


RITE AID: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources,
reports that in December of 2017, a federal Judge in Pennsylvania
dismissed a class action lawsuit against Rite Aid Corporation
claiming violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) that regulates background checks for employment purposes
for lack of standing under Article III of the United States
Constitution.

In the opinion in Moore v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., Judge Jan
DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found plaintiff Kyra Moore could not show she
suffered an injury after Rite Aid allegedly did not properly
provide her with an FCRA mandated notice before declining her
employment.

Moore applied for a job at Rite Aid and was found to be
"ineligible for hire" based on her background check that caused a
pre-adverse action letter to be sent to Moore informing her that
she would not be offered employment if Rite Aid did not hear from
her within five business days after receiving the letter.

Moore contacted Rite Aid to discuss her background check after
receiving the pre-adverse action letter, but was mailed an FCRA
mandated adverse action letter by Rite Aid exactly five business
days after the date of the pre-adverse action letter informing
her that she would not be hired for a job at Rite Aid.

Moore claimed Rite Aid violated the pre-adverse action provision
of the FCRA by taking adverse action against her without waiting
the "full five day period" set forth in the pre-adverse action
letter but the court dismissed her claim after finding she had
not suffered an injury based on Rite Aid's conduct.

The court concluded Moore had "not suffered a concrete harm to
her procedural rights under the FCRA" and dismissed her claim for
lack of standing, finding that a defendant should not be held
liable in federal court for a technical violation of the FCRA
where the plaintiff experienced no actual injury as a result.

On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, Inc. that plaintiffs must prove "concrete injury" in
class action lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of a federal
statute such as the FCRA, but employers are still being targeted
by FCRA lawsuits even after the Spokeo ruling.

The case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Inc. involved a man named
Thomas Robins who filed a class action lawsuit against Spokeo --
an online "people search engine" that sells publicly available
data about individuals -- claiming that Spokeo violated the FCRA
by publishing inaccurate information about him.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion: "Article III
standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a
statutory violation.  For that reason, Robins could not, for
example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any
concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of
Article III." [GN]


RUSTIC CANYON: Judge Certifies Price-Fixing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Jennings, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that
a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Jan. 16 certified as a
class action a lawsuit charging 17 restaurants with price fixing
for asking guests to pay a healthcare surcharge.

Initiated in 2015, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiff
Margaret Imhoff, who dined at the Los Angeles-area restaurant
Rustic Canyon after it had instituted a 3-percent surcharge to
cover the cost of healthcare for employees -- a practice that is
now fairly common among Los Angeles restaurants.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Imhoff alleges she paid $3.60 for the
surcharge and she believed the charge was mandatory.

At issue in the case is whether the 17 restaurants named in the
complaint colluded in establishing a surcharge in violation of
state antitrust laws.  According to the complaint, Rustic Canyon
co-owner Josh Loeb in 2014 emailed a group of "like-minded"
restaurant operators to plan of course of action for implementing
a surcharge.

In the end, however, not all of the restaurants adopted a 3
percent surcharge.  Some went higher than 3 percent, for example,
and some made the surcharge clearly optional for guests.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Jan. 16 certified as a
class action a lawsuit charging 17 restaurants with price fixing
for asking guests to pay a healthcare surcharge.

Initiated in 2015, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiff
Margaret Imhoff, who dined at the Los Angeles-area restaurant
Rustic Canyon after it had instituted a 3-percent surcharge to
cover the cost of healthcare for employees -- a practice that is
now fairly common among Los Angeles restaurants.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Imhoff alleges she paid $3.60 for the
surcharge and she believed the charge was mandatory.

At issue in the case is whether the 17 restaurants named in the
complaint colluded in establishing a surcharge in violation of
state antitrust laws.  According to the complaint, Rustic Canyon
co-owner Josh Loeb in 2014 emailed a group of "like-minded"
restaurant operators to plan of course of action for implementing
a surcharge.

In the end, however, not all of the restaurants adopted a 3
percent surcharge.  Some went higher than 3 percent, for example,
and some made the surcharge clearly optional for guests.

In addition to Rustic Canyon and sister brands Huckleberry CafÇ
and Milo & Olive, the restaurants included in the case are
operated by some of the city's top restaurateurs, including
Suzanne Goin of AOC, The Hungry Cat, and Lucques; Josiah Citrin
of Melisse; and Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo of Animal, Son of a
Gun and Trois Mec.

The order tentatively defined the "class" as any customer since
Sept. 1, 2014 who has a receipt indicating payment of an
employee-benefit surcharge at one of the restaurants, which could
potentially include thousands of people.  Parties in the lawsuit,
however, have until Feb. 20 to respond to the proposed
definition.

Rustic Canyon officials declined to comment on the development,
and others involved in the case did not respond to requests for
comment. [GN]


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Claims vs. I. Dawood Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA A. PARMELEE, Individually And on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER
USA HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS G. DUNDON, ISMAIL DAWOOD, JASON KULAS,
and JENNIFER DAVIS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-783-K
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and
Supporting Brief only as to Ismail Dawood, and dismissed all
claims against Dawood.

Santander is a consumer finance company that provides vehicle
finance and unsecured consumer lending.  Lead Plaintiffs Cynthia
Parmelee and Kelly Baxley purchased Santander securities.
Parmelee brought the class action suit on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased Santander securities
between Feb. 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016, inclusive.

On Feb. 3, 2015, Santander released its financial information for
the fourth quarter of 2014 and for the 2014 fiscal year, showing
strong profitability.  Based on this information, stock prices
continued to rise for the following two weeks, ultimately
increasing 20% above the $18.63 stock price that immediately
preceded the Class Period.

On April 28, 2015, Santander released the financial results for
the first quarter of 2015, again showing positive financial
results. The stock price continued to climb, reaching a peak
price of $26.83 on June 22, 2015.  Two weeks later, Defendant
Dundon, Santander's CEO at the time of these events, resigned
after the peak stock price and cashed out his entire 10%
ownership of Santander at a high trading price of $24.01.

The new CEO, Defendant Kulas, reassured investors Dundon's
resignation was not related to any problems with Santander's
finances.  Nonetheless, the stock price dropped following
Dundon's departure.  Kulas and Defendant Davis, interim CFO of
Santander from July 2015 to December 2015, also sold Santander
stock during the Class Period.  However, Defendant Dawood, CFO of
Santander after Davis, had no stock in Santander to sell.

In October 2015, Santander released its financial results for the
third quarter of 2015.  These financial results showed an
increase in Troubled Debt Restructurings ("TDRs") and a
corresponding decrease in the financial returns.  After the
release of this information, Santander's stock price fell by
15.6%.

On February 29, 2016, Santander announced it would not file its
2015 annual report on time.  Santander also announced it received
an open comment letter from the SEC regarding credit loss
allowance, TDR impairment, and disclosures during the third
quarter of 2015 and the 2014 fiscal year.  Two weeks later,
Santander stated it was changing its methodology for estimating
credit loss allowance and would be correcting prior fiscal
periods based on this new methodology.  In response to this
announcement, Santander's stock price dropped 16%.

On March 31, 2016, Santander filed its Form 10-K with the SEC for
the 2015 fiscal year and included restated financial results for
the 2011-2015 fiscal years.  These restated financial results
showed Santander had incorrectly estimated its credit loss
allowance for certain investments, incorrectly applied loss
emergence period to a portfolio instead of applying it only to
loans not considered TDRs, and failed to classify certain loans
as TDRs.

Six months later, Santander announced for the second time that it
would be restating financial statements and disclosures for the
2013, 2014, and 2015 financial years and for certain quarters in
2014, 2015, and 2016.  This second set of financial restatements
allegedly corrected accounting methodology and other accounting
errors.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action under 15 U.S.C. Section
74u-4 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA")
alleging Santander violated federal securities laws during the
Class Period by fraudulently overstating its net income resulting
in an artificial inflation of Santander's stock price.  They
further allege that then-CEO Defendant Dundon took advantage of
this inflated stock price by negotiating the buyout of his 10%
ownership in Santander during the time period when stock prices
were allegedly artificially inflated.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint and Supporting Brief.

Because Paremelee failed to meet the heightened pleading standard
for scienter as to Dawood, Judge Kinkeade granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss only as to Dawood, and dismissed all claims
against Dawood.  As to the other Defendants, Parmelee has met the
heightened pleading standard for scienter and adequately pleaded
loss causation.  Thus, Parmelee has sufficiently pleaded the
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims and can bring the dependent
Section 20(a) claim against the remaining Defendants.  Because
Parmelee has adequately pleaded her claims against Santander,
Dundon, Kulas, and Davis, the Judge denied Santander's motion to
dismiss as to those Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/wpKp6m from Leagle.com.

Cynthia A. Parmelee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Willie Briscoe --
wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law Firm, Jason L.
Krajcer -- jkrajcer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice, Kara M. Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Keith Lorenze --
klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
& Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Kelly Baxley, Plaintiff, represented by R. Dean Gresham, Steckler
Gresham Cochran, Jason L. Krajcer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Keith Lorenze, The Rosen Law Firm PA, Laurence Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice & Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm PA.

Stuart A Benson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney Barksdale
Perez -- cperez@carterscholer.com -- Carter Scholer PLLC, J.
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc
Gorrie -- mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Dahlstrom
-- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Peretz Bronstein,
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc, Thomas G. Dundon, Jason
Kulas & Jennifer Davis, Defendants, represented by R. Thaddeus
Behrens -- thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- Haynes & Boone LLP,
Caitlin A. Donovan -- CADonovan@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton Rosen
& Katz, Corey Jared Banks, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, pro hac
vice, Daniel H. Gold -- daniel.gold@haynesboone.com -- Haynes &
Boone LLP, David B. Anders -- DBAnders@wlrk.com -- Wachtell
Lipton Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice, Matthew Adams McGee --
matt.mcgee@haynesboone.com -- Haynes & Boone LLP, Nathaniel
Desmons Cullerton -- NDCullerton@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton
Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice & Stephen R. DiPrima --
SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice.


SIRIUS XM: Summary Judgment Granted in DPPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq. -- julie.hoffmeister@troutman.com --
and Ronald I. Raether Jr., Esq. -- ron.raether@troutman.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California recently granted summary judgment to Sirius XM Radio,
Inc. in a putative class action under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act ("DPPA").

As background, plaintiff James Andrew alleged on behalf of
himself and a putative class that Sirius sent solicitation
letters using personal information obtained from motor vehicle
records in violation of the DPPA's limits on marketing uses.
Prior to the filing of Sirius' motion for summary judgment,
counsel for Sirius explained to Andrew's counsel that the
satellite radio broadcaster had not obtained the "personal
information" of Andrew or any other class members from the
state's Department of Motor Vehicles but instead obtained
Andrew's name, address, telephone number, and vehicle information
from a combination of Auto Source, the dealer from which Andrew
purchased the vehicle, and the United States Postal Service's
change of address database.  Despite Sirius providing Andrew's
counsel with declarations supporting these facts, Andrew refused
to dismiss the suit.

In his opposition brief to Sirius' motion for summary judgment,
Andrew argued that "the DPPA extends beyond information obtained
from a state's DMV and includes Defendant's use of information
obtained from the driver license Plaintiff provided to Auto
Source and the information Auto Source input [into a computer
program] to prepare and submit a DMV change of ownership form for
the vehicle Plaintiff purchase[d]."

In granting Sirius' motion, the Court held that "[l]ike the
Supreme Court and the vast majority of other courts to have
analyzed the issue, this Court interprets the DPPA's definition
of 'motor vehicle record' as requiring that the DMV be the source
of the 'record.'"  The Court further held that "[i]nterpreting
the statute as Plaintiff suggests and construing a 'motor vehicle
record' to include a driver license would render the definition's
use of both 'record' and 'pertains to' as surplusage because the
driver license would be 'pertaining' to itself and ignore the
requirement that it also be a 'record.'"  Further, Mr. Andrew's
"reasoning would criminalize the conduct of, and create civil
liability for, the Good Samaritan who finds a lost wallet and
uses the name and address found on the driver license found in
the wallet to return the wallet to its owner.  Acknowledging that
a driver license is not itself a 'motor vehicle record'
'contained in the records' of the DMV avoids such absurd
results."

The Court ultimately concluded "that the undisputed facts
establish that Defendant did not 'use' 'personal information'
'from a motor vehicle record' when it obtained Plaintiff's name,
address, phone number, and vehicle information from Auto Source's
[computer program] and the Postal Service's change of address
database." As such, the DPPA's limits on marketing uses did not
apply.

The case is Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-01724
(C.D. Cal.). [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Strumlauf" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIERA STRUMLAUF, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01306-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike and granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Lattes at various
Starbucks retail locations in the United States.  Starbucks gives
customers the option of specifying the type of milk (e.g., skim,
2%, whole, almond, soy) and how much foam they want in their
Latte.

Starbucks' retail locations display menu boards which represent
that hot beverages contain "12 fl. oz. 6" for a Tall, "16 fl.
oz." for a Grande, and "20 fl. oz." for a Venti," respectively.
The Plaintiffs allege that Starbucks uniformly underfills its
Lattes to save on the cost of milk.  According to them, Starbucks
made a conscious decision to underfill Lattes when faced with
financial difficulties and high milk prices at the end of 2007.

The Plaintiffs further allege that when Lattes are created
pursuant to the company's standard recipe, the resulting
beverages are underfilled because (i) the maximum capacity of
cups used to serve Lattes ("Hot Cups") is "exactly" the Promised
Beverage Volume; (ii) Starbucks does not fill its Hot Cups to
capacity in order to accommodate milk foam which does not count
toward the volume of its Lattes; and (iii) the standard pitcher
currently used by Starbucks baristas to make Lattes contains a
"Fill-To" line which results in beverages which contain less than
the Promised Beverage Volume.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Starbucks
alleging that the Defendant uniformly underfills its lattes and
mochas.  They allege eight causes of action, namely (i) breach of
express warranty (all the Plaintiffs); (ii) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (iii) Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and (iv) False Advertising Law ("FAL");
(v) New York's General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 and (vi)
Section 350; (vii) Florida's Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("FDUTPA"); and (viii) common law fraud.  Strumlauf and
Robles assert all California claims (Counts 2, 3, and 4) and
Crittenden asserts the New York and Florida claims (Counts 5, 6,
and 7).

Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to all claims.  It moves for summary judgment on the
grounds that the Plaintiff cannot prove a false statement or
representation based on the undisputed facts.  Specifically, the
evidence shows that (i) the capacity of Hot Cups is greater than
the Promised Beverage Volume; (ii) milk foam is a component of a
Latte and thus counts toward volume; and (iii) Fill-To lines
serve as a guide for baristas when pouring cold milk which
expands in volume as the milk is aerated and heated to serving
temperature.

Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
paragraphs 13-15 of the declaration of Debra Antonio, and
paragraphs 4-5 of the declaration of Wendy Lubahn, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c)(4) and Fed. R. Evid. 602, 702 and 801.

Having carefully considered the pleadings and fully-briefed
motions, and the hearings held on Nov. 7, 2017, and Dec. 19,
2017, Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike and granted
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' motion to strike is not
proper under Rule 56(c)(4) for two reasons.  First, Rule 56 does
not provide a means for striking declarations.  Rather, their
objections are more accurately characterized as evidentiary.
Second, and in any event, the objections are without merit
because Antonio and Lubhan are "competent to testify on the
matters stated" in their respective declarations.

The Judge holds that each of the Plaintiffs' causes of action
requires, at minimum, a false statement or misrepresentation.
Their failure to establish such a statement or representation is
fatal to each of their eight claims.  He thus finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to
whether the Defendant made a false statement or misrepresentation
pursuant to any of their three theories, namely that (i) the
capacity of Hot Cups is exactly the Promised Beverage Volume,
(ii) milk foam does not count toward the volume of a Latte, and
(iii) Starbucks' steaming pitchers and Beverage Recipe Cards
specify quantities of ingredients which result in Lattes which
contain less than the Promised Beverage Volume.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs fail to show that Lattes contain less than the
Promised Beverage Volume represented on Starbucks' menu boards.

He denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Defendant is directed to file a form of judgment approved as
to form within five business days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/l9pjk2 from Leagle.com.

Siera Strumlauf & Benjamin Robles, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., Gerald R. Healy --
gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com -- Military Justice Attorneys,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Joel Dashiell Smith , Bursor & Fisher, John
Hafemann -- john@militaryjusticeattorneys.com -- Military Justice
Attorneys, PLLC, Joseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com --
Bursor Fisher P.A., pro hac vice, Neal J. Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice &
Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Brittany Crittenden, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Weiner,
Imbesi Law P.C., Gerald R. Healy, Military Justice Attorneys,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Joel Dashiell Smith, Bursor & Fisher, John
Hafemann, Military Justice Attorneys, PLLC, Joseph I. Marchese,
Bursor Fisher P.A., pro hac vice, Murray Friedman, Imbesi Law
P.C., Neal J. Deckant, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
A. Bursor, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert James
Guite -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Abby Hess Meyer , Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton
LLP, Fred R. Puglisi -- fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corp. & Sascha Von Mende Henry --
shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional
Corporations.


STARBUCKS CORP: Crowell & Moring Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Milewski, Esq. -- jmilewski@crowell.com -- of Crowell &
Moring LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that surveys play
an increasingly important role in consumer class actions, whether
used to deny class certification, defeat plaintiffs' allegations
of consumer "deception," or even refute damages arguments.

Recently, beverage giant Starbucks Corp. defeated a proposed
class action alleging that Starbucks had violated consumer
protection statutes in California, Florida, and New York by
uniformly filling its lattes and mochas with more foam -- and
less actual beverage -- than a reasonable consumer would expect.
In dismissing the case on summary judgment and denying class
certification as moot, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
for the Northern District of California focused on the
plaintiffs' flawed survey results. Strumlauf et al. v. Starbucks
Corp., No. 16-CV-01306-YGR, 2018 WL 306715 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2018).  The plaintiffs had introduced an expert report presenting
the results of two surveys purporting to show that 70-80% of
consumers expected that the "Promised Beverage Volume" of
Starbucks lattes did not include foam.  The first survey showed
respondents a sample menu board with small, medium, and large and
asked how many fluid ounces of beverage they expected to receive.
This survey was flawed, the court found, because it did not
measure consumers' understanding of what "fluid ounce" means.
The second survey showed images of a cup with varying amounts of
fluid and foam and then asked which "medium 16 fl. oz. beverage"
the respondents expected to receive.  This survey, too, fell
short because it showed a "caricatured image" and "the 'question
begg[ed] its answer [and was] not a true indicator of the
likelihood of consumer confusion.'" In sum, the Court attacked
the surveys as "leading and suggestive" and ultimately found they
failed to establish a triable issue on consumer deception.

Last year, a different beverage company used surveys to its
advantage in a purported class action but for a different
purpose: to defeat class certification.  The consumers in that
litigation alleged that the maker of 5-Hour Energy violated
consumer protection statutes in six different states by
deceptively claiming that 5-Hour Energy provides "hours of
energy" when it actually provides only a few minutes. In re 5-
Hour Energy Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. ML132438PSGPLAX,
2017 WL 2559615, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2017), reconsideration
denied, No. ML132438PSGPLAX, 2017 WL 4772567 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11,
2017).  In opposing class certification, the defendants
introduced expert testimony based on online survey results
showing that only 2.2% of 5-Hour Energy consumers relied on the
challenged statements when making their initial purchase. The
surveys also indicated that the "hours of energy" claim had
little effect on subsequent purchases, which were instead driven
by consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product
itself.  The defendants leveraged these survey results to argue
that the claims at issue were not uniformly material to all class
members, and thus that individual issues predominated over common
ones.  The Court agreed and denied class certification, finding
that "[w]ithout a market survey documenting consumer preferences,
Plaintiffs ha[d] not shown that the 'five hour energy'
representation [was] material to consumers as compared to other
factors."

Surveys can benefit consumer goods companies and class action
defendants alike, as they can be used both as a sword when
demonstrating that consumers did not rely on challenged
statements when making a purchase, and as a shield when attacking
plaintiffs' misleading expert testimony attempting to show
consumer confusion -- especially where, as in the Starbucks case,
the plaintiffs' surveys are poorly designed or contain leading
questions.  Given the high stakes of consumer class action
litigation, it definitely pays to "survey" all options for
defeating such claims, whether at class certification, summary
judgment, or trial. [GN]


STERLING JEWELERS: Sex Discrimination Claims Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that almost 70,000
women were bounced from a sex discrimination case against
Sterling Jewelers on Jan. 16.  An American Arbitration
Association arbitrator had certified the women, current and
former Sterling employees, as part of a class pursuing private
arbitration claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  But
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan ruled the arbitrator
did not have authority over women who hadn't affirmatively joined
the arbitration.  Judge Rakoff held the class can consist only of
women who have specifically opted into the arbitration of their
sex discrimination claims.  According to Sterling, that shrinks
the case against the jeweler to claims by only 254 women.

Only 254 female Sterling employees, out of a total of about
70,000, have affirmatively asserted sex discrimination against
the company in classwide arbitration.

Class action detractors are probably thinking right now that the
Sterling case proves employees don't lose a valuable right when
employers bar them from arbitrating as a group.  After all, tens
of thousands of women at Sterling were deemed to have a right to
classwide arbitration of their gender bias claims, yet only 254
explicitly said they wanted to use it-- a seemingly minuscule
participation rate, even by class litigation standards.

As you've probably guessed, the story turns out to be more
complicated than that simple syllogism.  The U.S. Supreme Court
will soon decide the fate of employer prohibitions on employees'
class arbitration in a trio of cases the justices heard back in
October.  Depending on the Supreme Court's decision, the Sterling
case could be one of the last big, classwide employment
arbitrations ever to be litigated.  So it's important to
understand how Sterling's women employees wielded their power to
act in concert against their employer.

It was those employees, and their lawyers at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, who first moved to arbitrate their claims in the
10-year-old case, which raised allegations under both Title VII
and the Equal Pay Act.  Sterling's employment contract did not
explicitly address classwide arbitration.  The arbitrator
eventually determined that she had the authority to interpret the
agreement -- and that its terms permitted employees to arbitrate
as a class.  She subsequently granted conditional certification
to two classes, one to arbitrate Title VII claims and the other
to pursue Equal Pay Act claims.

Judge Rakoff and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have
struggled to agree on federal court authority over decisions by
the Sterling arbitrator, which has made for a legally interesting
dialogue between the trial and appellate courts.  Judge Rakoff
recapped the back-and-forth in the Jan. 16 opinion, highlighting
what he called "tension" between the 2nd Circuit's 2011 holding
that the Sterling arbitrator had the power to determine whether
Sterling's employment agreements permit classwide arbitration,
and the 2nd Circuit's ruling last year that its 2011 decision
doesn't necessarily mean the arbitrator can certify a class
including employees who haven't opted into the proceeding.

Sterling has maintained throughout the case that the women's
claims have no merit.  But the allegations have undeniably
affected the company.  Last May, Sterling settled the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's gender bias suit in Buffalo
federal court, agreeing to adopt new anti-discrimination policies
and to train managers to avoid bias.  Sterling, which is
represented in the gender employment litigation by Seyfarth Shaw,
did not pay any money as part of the EEOC settlement.

The company is also facing Equal Pay Act claims by nearly 10,000
women who opted into that classwide arbitration, which, as I
mentioned, was certified separately from the Title VII class.
Sterling is challenging the arbitrator's class certification
decision in the Equal Pay Act case, but the arbitration is
meanwhile scheduled for trial in May.  In addition, Sterling is
defending a securities class action accusing the company of
deceiving shareholders about the gravity of the sex bias
allegations.  That case followed the February 2017 disclosure of
1,300 pages of arbitration documents in which about 200 current
and former female Sterling employees described a corporate
culture of sexual harassment and discrimination. (Sterling has
denied intentionally paying women less than men, refuted
allegations of harassment and said testimony was "being
publicized by claimants' counsel to present a distorted, negative
image of the company.")

Certainly, more than 254 current and former female Sterling
employees were aware of the existence of the classwide sex
discrimination arbitration.  Nearly 10,000 of them went to the
trouble of affirmatively filing claims in the parallel Equal Pay
Act arbitration.  So why didn't more of those 70,000 Sterling
women choose to pursue gender discrimination claims?

According to plaintiffs' lawyers at Cohen Milstein, the answer is
that women didn't opt in to the Title VII arbitration because the
arbitrator said they didn't have to.  In its brief backing the
arbitrator's class certification decision, Cohen Milstein
explained that the arbitrator ruled back in 2009 that women who
had not already filed sex discrimination claims against Sterling
could rely on similar claims by other members of the prospective
arbitration class.  Cohen Milstein said the arbitrator's holding
-- which it said accords with contract law, the Sterling
agreement, Rule 23 and Title VII -- relieved prospective class
members of an obligation to opt in to the sex discrimination
arbitration. Absent class members could simply piggyback on
already-filed claims, according to Cohen Milstein.

By contrast, the arbitrator decided she could not certify the
Equal Pay Act arbitration to proceed as an opt-out class because
such cases are typically litigated under federal law as opt-in
class actions.  Women who worked at Sterling were notified about
the Equal Pay Act arbitration, and, as I mentioned, nearly 10,000
affirmatively chose to participate in it.

But Cohen Milstein said it's "misleading" to talk about opt-ins
in the Title VII case, considering that the arbitrator concluded
plaintiffs did not need to opt-in to participate in the class
case.

Judge Rakoff looked at the question from a different angle,
holding that prospective class members never agreed to submit to
the arbitrator's authority and cannot be bound by an erroneous
interpretation of the contract they signed.  He cited a dissent
by Justice Samuel Alito in the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in
Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter.

It will eventually be up to the 2nd Circuit to decide if Judge
Rakoff was right to exclude tens of thousands of women from the
Title VII class, since Cohen Milstein said in an email statement
on Jan. 16 that it plans to appeal.  By the time the 2nd Circuit
has its third crack at the Sterling case, the Supreme Court may
have blessed employment agreements that require employees to
waive the right to arbitrate as a class. [GN]


STOCKTON ENTERPRISES: Court Stays "Predmore" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA PREDMORE, Plaintiff, v. STOCKTON ENTERPRISES,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-01091-MCE-GGH (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Stay the Action and/or
to Compel Arbitration.

By way of the action, Predmore, on behalf of herself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, seeks to
recover from the Defendants or violations of federal and state
labor laws.  Very generally, according to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants misclassified her and her fellow exotic dancers as
independent contractors rather than employees.  Based on injuries
sustained as a result of that misclassification, she seeks to
recover on behalf of herself and the class for, again generally,
failure to pay full and appropriate wages, to provide required
breaks, or to properly indemnify for expenses.  In addition, she
seeks to recover penalties via a representative claim brought
pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code Section 2699 et seq.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss/Stay this Action and/or to Compel Arbitration.  According
to the Defendants, all of the Plaintiff's causes of action aside
from her Federal Labor Standards Act claim are already the
subject of a settlement approved in a separate class action filed
in the Eastern District of Michigan, Jane Doe 1-2 v. Deja Vu
Services, Inc.  Moreover, an injunction was issued in that case
specifically enjoining the Plaintiff and others from prosecuting
the instant claims.

The Defendants further contend that the action should be stayed
under the "first-to-file" rule, which permits courts to stay
proceedings that are substantially similar to an already pending
action.  Finally, they ask the Court alternatively to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to an arbitration
agreement contained in her contract with them.

Given the lack of finality of the Michigan action and the broad
injunction issued in that case, Judge England finds that it makes
little sense for the Court to address the merits of any of the
Plaintiff's claims now.  Once the judgment in that case is final,
then the Court can address which of the Plaintiff's claims are
barred by that action and which, if any, are potentially subject
to arbitration.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' Motion as to their
request for a stay, denied without prejudice as to their requests
for dismissal and/or to compel arbitration.  He stayed the action
until judgment in Jane Doe 1-2 is final.  All pending dates in
the case are vacated.  Not later than 60 days following the date
this order is electronically filed, and every 60 days thereafter
until the stay is lifted, the parties are directed to file a
joint status report advising the Court regarding the status of
the Michigan action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DiD81i from Leagle.com.

Julia Predmore, individually and acting in the interest of other
current and former employees and the public, Plaintiff,
represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco --
ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Hector
Rodriguez Martinez -- HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau -- MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez & Stanley S. Mallison --
StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez.

Stockton Enterprises, LLC, a Limited Liability Company & Dj Vu
Showgirls-Sacramento, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, represented by Douglas J. Melton --
dmelton@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP, Jonathan Rizzardi --
jrizzardi@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP & Shane Michael
Cahill -- scahill@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP.


SUNDANCE INC: Taco Bell Employees File Wage Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WWJ reports that hundreds of Taco Bell employees across the state
of Michigan have joined a class-action lawsuit against a fast
food franchise owner.

The suit, filed on behalf of the workers against Sundance Inc. of
Brighton, which owns 75 taco bell restaurants, claims that the
corporation systematically practiced wage theft against its
employees.

"There's a whole slew of things that we believe Sundance has been
engaging in in order to avoid paying overtime wages," said
attorney Jennifer McManus, who represents more than 500 former
and current Taco Bell employees.  "One is clocking its employees
out and requiring them to continue working. Another is
manipulating their clock in and clock out times after they leave
the store."

Ms. McManus said, of the plaintiffs in this case: "They came
forward very randomly, as people who were saying what's happening
to me on the job isn't right. It was as simple as that."

Attorney Megan Bonanni, also representing the employees, what
they're alleging in the lawsuit is that the company violated the
state's Fair Labor Standards Act.

What do the workers want?

"In addition to money -- which would be the wages owed, perhaps a
doubling of the wages owed, depending on certain court rulings --
we're also seeking an order from the courts called equitable
relief, that these practices have to end," Ms. Bonanni said.
"And that these employees be paid in compliance with the various
state and federal wage and hour laws that we have."

The lawsuit was filed in District Court in Detroit.

In an email sent to WWJ Newsradio 950, Taco Bell Corp. stated:
"Our franchisees are independent owners and operators.  Because
they are responsible for the operations of their restaurants, we
cannot comment on this specific litigation, but we do expect that
all of our franchisees comply with all applicable laws, including
wage and hour requirements."

Calls for comment to Sundance Inc. by WWJ were not immediately
returned. [GN]


SUNSHINE LANDSCAPE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a California unpaid wages lawsuit has been launched against a
landscaper responsible for maintaining the grounds at Palm Valley
Country Club in Palm Desert.  The allegations include wage
infractions, off-the-clock work and improper wage statements.

However the central aspect of the lawsuit, which was filed in
early December last year and has been proposed as a class action,
are allegations of an inability for workers to take rest periods
after hours at a time toiling in sometimes sweltering conditions.

According to a report in the Desert Sun (12/14/17), employees of
Sunshine Landscape -- which provided landscaping services to the
Palm Valley Country Club -- were given a long meal break at mid-
day, but were prevented from taking rest breaks as needed the
rest of the time -- a need that was heightened when temperatures
at times soared as high as 125 degrees Fahrenheit in the hot sun.

Employees required to take all their breaks at once, at noon --
with none left for relief from hot sun and heat.

According to the Desert Sun, which is part of the USA TODAY
network, California labor law dictates that employees are
provided with a 30-minute meal break if their workday encompasses
more than five hours.  There is no provision in the labor code
that requires the employer, according to the Desert Sun, to pay
the employee for that half-hour meal break.

Rest breaks, however are mandated after every four hours of work
-- and are paid breaks, according to California labor law.

The employer and defendant in the proposed class action lawsuit
-- Sunshine Landscape -- required their employees to take an
hour-long meal period at mid-day, and paid the employees for half
of that time.  Since meal periods are normally 30 minutes in
length and are to be unpaid breaks, the remaining 30 minutes paid
for by the employer presumably represents three, 10-minute rest
periods taken concurrently, and immediately adjacent to the meal
period.

However, the rest periods were confined to the meal period when
the employees were already stopped down for nourishment -- and
thus not available to the employee when toiling in the hot sun at
other times of the day.

In sum, the employer -- Sunshine Landscape -- required their
employees to take a lengthy, single break at mid-day but
prevented employees from taking a break of any kind outside of
that over-length meal period.

Was the employer's rest break period inhumane?

"I cannot imagine, as a human being, working for four hours in
125-degree heat . . .  without a single opportunity to rest, or
even to sit down," said the attorney for the lead plaintiff,
Megan Beaman, in comments published in the Desert Sun.

The lead plaintiff in the class action labor lawsuit is
identified as Blanca Reina Gonzalez Ortiz, who claims she did not
have an opportunity to take a single rest period in the four
years she worked for the defendant.  This was also the case when
temperatures in the Palm desert, in which she was working,
climbed into the triple digits -- or so it is alleged.

There is also a donning and doffing aspect to the case, in that
Gonzalez Ortiz alleges her employer required her and other
employees to report to work anywhere from ten, to 15 minutes
before the scheduled start of their shift to prepare tools, and
for mandated exercise.  There are also allegations that workers
had to travel to the work site either by foot, or golf cart.

They were not paid for these activities, according to
allegations.  The lawsuit claims that according to California
labor statutes, those activities should have been paid.  Gonzalez
Ortiz' attorney states that over time, the unpaid wages can add
up to as much as $2,000 for an employee making minimum wage.

The California unpaid wages lawsuit also asserts that accurate,
itemized wage statements were not properly provided to employees.
Further allegations assert that Sunshine Landscape failed to pay
employees final wages upon termination of employment in a timely
manner.

It is anticipated the lawsuit could represent between 80, and 300
class members.

Case information was not available at press time.  The proposed
class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court. [GN]


SWIRE OILFIELD: Must Produce ADP & Corban Docs in "Landry"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDDIE LANDRY; MARIO CONSTANCIO, JR. and MARK TAMAYO,
Plaintiffs, v. SWIRE OILFIELD SERVICES, L.L.C. and SWIRE WATER
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. CIV 16-0621 JB/LF (D.
N.M.), Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Electronic Payroll Records, filed Jan. 26, 2017; (ii)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Notice of Non-
Appearance and Motion for Protective Order, filed April 6, 2017;
(iii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Compel Swire to Comply with 30(b)(6) Notice, filed April 21,
2017; (iv) granted the Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time
to Produce Documents Received from ADP Payroll, Inc. and Corban
OneSource LLC, filed June 14, 2017; and (v) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Third Party (ADP) Deposition, filed
June 15, 2017.

Swire Oilfield is an oilfield services company, which provides
oilfield fluid management services to drilling companies across
the globe, including drilling companies in New Mexico.  The
Plaintiffs are Swire Oilfield's operators who rig oilfield
equipment, monitor drilling fluids, and generally assist in the
drilling process.  These operators commonly work more than 12
hours a day, and often more than 90 hours a week.

From 2013 until 2016, Swire Oilfield paid those operators under
two pay systems, a salaried system and a Fluctuating Work Week
("FWW") system.  The Plaintiffs contend that, under either
system, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") because they failed to pay the requisite overtime, and
the requisite minimum wage.  Plaintiff Tamayo also contends that,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the FWW
system violates the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA").

On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed this suit as a proposed
collective action under the FLSA, and as a proposed class action
under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  With
respect to the FLSA, the Plaintiffs bring the suit on two
proposed classes' behalf: (i) the Salary Class, i.e., all of the
Defendants' current and former operators throughout the United
States who were paid on a salary basis without overtime in the
last three years; and (ii) the FWW Class, i.e., all of the
Defendants' current and former operators throughout the United
States who were paid under the fluctuating work week method
during the last three years.  On May 2, 2017, the Court
conditionally certified the Salary Class and the FWW Class as
collective actions.

Before the Court are (i) the First Motion to Compel; (ii) the
Motion for Protective Order; (iii) the Second Motion to Compel;
(iv) the Enlargement Motion; and (v) the Third Motion to Compel.
The Court held hearings on March 23, 2017, and May 12, 2017.

The primary issues are: (i) whether rule 34 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure requires the Defendants to produce records in
electronically readable format -- the format in which the
Plaintiffs request the documents be produced; (ii) whether the
Court should compel a third-party deposition of ADP Payroll
Services, Inc.; (iii) whether rule 26(c) protects the Defendants
from testifying at a deposition about topics related to the
Defendants' interactions with payroll companies, the Defendants'
efforts to gather discovery documents, the Defendants'
methodology in compiling discovery documents, and matters in
which the Defendants have already produced responsive documents;
and (iv) whether the Court should extend, by one week, the
deadline for the Defendants to produce documents received from
ADP Payroll and Corban OneSource, LLC in accordance with the
Court's Order, filed May 25, 2017 ("Subpoena Order").

Judge Browning concludes that: (i) rule 34 requires the
Defendants to produce the electronic documents in the electronic
format that the Plaintiffs request; (ii) it will not compel ADP
Payroll's deposition, because a third-party deposition is
unnecessary as the Defendants' production of electronic documents
in electronic format affords the relief that the Plaintiffs'
seek; and (iii) rule 26(c) does not protect the Defendants from
testifying at a deposition about their efforts to produce
responsive documents, because the testimony sought is relevant.

The granted the Defendants' request for a one-week deadline
extension, because there is good cause for such a slight
extension.  He accordingly granted the First Motion to Compel,
granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Protective
Order, granted in part and denied in part the Second Motion to
Compel, granted the Enlargement Motion, and denied the Third
Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/mRgqRJ from Leagle.com.

Eddie Landry, Mario Constancio, Jr. & Mark Tamayo, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel M. Faber -- Dan@DanielFaber.com -- Law
Office of Daniel Faber, Patrick Leyendecker --
kleyendecker@azalaw.com -- Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi &
Mensing, PC, pro hac vice & Galvin B. Kennedy --
gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges LLP, pro hac vice.

Swire Oilfield Services, LLC & Swire Water Solutions, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Charlotte A. Lamont --
clamont@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Yvette V. Gatling
-- ygatling@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


TEMPOE LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Garcia" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Priscila Dominguez and Alicia Garcia filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Alicia
Garcia, et al. v. Tempoe LLC, et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-02106, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) -- Class Action Fairness Act Review of
Remand Orders.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on March 30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Essex
County and was assigned Case No. L-000273-17.  On March 31, 2017,
the lawsuit was removed to the District Court.

Tempoe provides no credit required shopping solutions that offers
various payment options.  The Defendants-Respondents are TEMPOE
LLC, TEMPOE NEW JERSEY LLC, WHYNOT LEASING LLC, BUY AND SAVE
FURNITURE INC. and CLASSIC FURNITURE CORP.

The appellate case is captioned as Alicia Garcia, et al. v.
Tempoe LLC, et al., Case No. 18-8003, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ALICIA GARCIA and PRISCILA DOMINGUEZ, On
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM
          411 Hackensack Avenue
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net

Defendant-Respondent TEMPOE LLC is represented by:

          Kate E. Janukowicz, Esq.
          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4913
          E-mail: kjanukowicz@gibbonslaw.com
                  mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com


TESARO INC: March 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Tesaro Incorporated ("Tesaro" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:TSRO) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the District
of Massachusetts, and docketed under 18-cv-10086, is on behalf of
a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Tesaro between March 14, 2016 and
January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff 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 "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesaro securities between
March 14, 2016, and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until March 19, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and quantity of shares purchased.

Tesaro is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that
identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer
therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United
States.

At all relevant times, Tesaro's product portfolio has included
Varubi (rolapitant), a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist
for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.
In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved
an oral version of Varubi.  On March 14, 2016, Tesaro announced
the submission of a New Drug Application for an intravenous
formulation of Varubi to the FDA.  On October 25, 2017, Tesaro
announced the FDA's approval of its intravenous version of
Varubi.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) substantial
undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and anaphylactic
shock, were associated with Tesaro's intravenous formulation of
Varubi; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Tesaro's shares
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
and class members suffered significant losses and damages.

On January 12, 2018, post-market, Tesaro announced that it had
updated the U.S. labeling for the intravenous formulation of
Varubi after receiving reports of "[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic
shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions . . . in the
post-marketing setting, some requiring hospitalization."  The
Company further stated that it "has issued a Dear Healthcare
Professional (DHCP) letter."

On this news, Tesaro's share price fell $4.07 or 5.85%, to close
at $65.52 on January 16, 2018.

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


UNITED STATES: FAA Faces 2nd Class Action Over Drone
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Reaganon, writing for Dronelife, reports that the aviation
legal skies are swarming after an 800,000-plus-person lawsuit
crashed into the FAA, alleging the federal agency wrongly
collected personal data and money under drone regulations later
declared illegal.

Robert Taylor v. FAA is the second such class action suit filed
against the FAA in as many years and has a fraternal connection
with the first.  In 2015, Mr. Taylor's brother, John, filed suit
claiming that Part 48 of FAA drone registration rules applying to
model aircraft was illegal.  In May, a federal appeals court
agreed, vacating the model-aircraft registration requirements.
However, the December passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2017 effectively rescinded the ruling.

On Jan. 5, Robert filed a four-count challenge, claiming the
agency violated the previous Taylor decision by collecting money
and personal information under Part 48.

"[The FAA] did not delete the registry or refund the money,"
writes aviation attorney Jonathan Rupprecht in a recent blog post
(Rupprecht is not involved in the case).  He added that, if the
court finds for Robert and the more-than 836,000 other
plaintiffs, "each injured party is entitled to $1,000 in
statutory damages."

he suit also claims:

"[The FAA] violated Plaintiff and the Class's Constitutional and
privacy rights by unlawfully promulgating the Registration Rule
and enforcing the Registration Rule without any statutory
authority to do so. Further, once the D.C. Circuit vacated the
Registration Rule, the Defendants did not delete the private and
personal information of Model Aircraft owners and did not refund
their registration fees. In addition, the Defendants unlawfully
continued the registration process and unlawfully maintained
Plaintiff and the Class's private and personal information even
after the D.C. Circuit held that the Defendants were prohibited
from doing so."

Mr. Rupprecht points out that, if successful, the suit could
result in an almost-$1 billion award.

"The lawsuit is seeking $5 back for the class ($4,183,980),
Privacy Act violation statutory damages of $1,000 EACH for the
members of the class ($ 836,796,000).  In sum, we're looking at
almost 841 million plus attorneys fees." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Thorson" Suit
---------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon dismissed the case, R. THORSON, E. BONGIORNI,
S. DOWELL, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Case No. 3:17-cv-01942-JR (D. Or.)

The Petitioners are federal inmates at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Sheridan, Oregon, who purport to bring a "Class
Action Extraordinary Writ Challenging the Constitutionality of
Statute 18 U.S.C. Section 2250-60."  They did not submit a filing
fee, and their "Motion to Waive the Filing Fee" does not include
certified copies of their prison trust accounts to establish the
inability to pay. Regardless, the action must be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.

On behalf of themselves and other federal prisoners convicted of
child pornography offenses, the Petitioners contend that the
federal government exceeded its authority under the Commerce
Clause to regulate or criminalize child pornography and, in doing
so, violated their rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
They maintain that the federal government discriminated against
them based solely on their sexual orientation of pedophilia and
threatened the tenets of the Islamic religion and the sexual
orientation that pedophiles are born with and powerless to
change.  The Petitioners seek a declaration that 18 U.S.C.
Sections 2250-2260 are unconstitutional and an order requiring
that petitioners be released and all record of these statutes be
purged from their records.

Judge McShane holds that the Petitioners may not challenge their
federal convictions through a class action.  Rather, a petitioner
who seeks to challenge the legality of his detention must file a
motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to correct, vacate, or set
aside his conviction or sentence.  In other words, each
petitioner must file a Section 2255 motion in the district where
he was sentenced, and each of them must do so within one year
after the relevant conviction became final.

The Judge says that if the Petitioners intend to argue that
Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
their detention, they arguably may seek review under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 in the district.  However, each Petitioner must make
a claim of actual innocence and show that he did not have an
unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim in a
Section 2255 motion.

In the case, no petitioner asserts that he is actually innocent
of child pornography offenses and had no opportunity to raise his
arguments in a Section 2255 motion.  Accordingly, the Judge holds
that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners'
claims, and dismissed the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order of Dismissal
is available at https://is.gd/GQCpnQ from Leagle.com.

Robert D. Thorson, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Eric Bongiorni, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Samuel Dowell, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Dwayne Earl Dee Casteel, Petitioner, Pro Se.


UNITED STATES: Remaining Claims in "Nassiri" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mohammad Nassiri, Diep Thi Nugyen, Anh Van Thai, Duc
Huynh, and Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Duke (Duc) Tran,
Mary Hagar, Nicholas Pilcher, Sundeep Patel, and SSA-Agent Does
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-0583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge
William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Berryhill Order; (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Villasenor and
Sanchez Order; and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' only
remaining claims -- their claims for damages against Defendants
Hagar, Tran, Pilcher, and Patel.

On March 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs initiated the action.  On Dec.
27, 2015, they filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC").  On Aug. 18, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing
all claims in the SAC except for the sixth (Equal Protection),
eleventh (First Amendment), and thirteenth (Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment) causes of action filed by Plaintiffs Anh Van Thai,
Diep Thi Nguyen, Duc Huynh, Trai Chau, and Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan
VHCH.  The Court also dismissed all claims for damages against
Defendant Carolyn Colvin in her official capacity as Commissioner
of Social Security.

On Oct. 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File
a Third Amended Complaint.  On Dec. 21, 2016, the Court issued an
order granting in part the Motion for Leave to File a Third
Amended Complaint.  It ordered that the Plaintiffs may file a
Third Amended Complaint, naming only the remaining Defendants
Carolyn Colvin, Nicholas Pilcher, Sundeep Patel, William
Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, Duke Tran and Mary Hagar -- and only
including the sixth (Equal Protection), eleventh (First
Amendment), and thirteenth (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment)
causes of action alleged in the Plaintiffs' Proposed Third
Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC").  It named seven Defendants: Carolyn Colvin,
Mary Hagar, Duke Tran, Nicholas Pilcher, Sundeep Patel, William
Villasenor, and Dulce Sanchez.  The TAC alleges that
interrogations conducted by Defendants Pilcher, Patel,
Villasenor, and Sanchez relating to an SSA investigation
concerning the Plaintiffs' attorney Alexandra Manbeck
("Searches") violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the First
Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause.

On Jan. 24, 2017, Defendant Berryhill filed a Motion to Dismiss
all claims against her as moot.  On July 19, 2017, the Court
issued an Order granting Berryhill's Motion to Dismiss.

On March 15, 2017, Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez moved to
dismiss all claims against them in the TAC.  On Aug. 8, 2017, the
Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Villasenor and Sanchez on the grounds that the TAC does not
allege sufficient facts to support the allegations that
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez acted under color of state law.
The Court then proceeded to order Plaintiffs to show cause
whether the remaining Defendants can be sued for damages under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi.  At this point in the litigation,
the only claims remaining are the Plaintiffs claims for damages
against Defendants Hagar, Tran, Pilcher, and Patel.

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Berryhill Order, asserting that a decision
issued by the SSA on July 19, 2017 denying Plaintiff Thai
benefits ("SSA Decision") supports reconsideration.

Judge Hayes concludes that the SSA Decision does not provide any
basis for reconsidering the Court's order denying as moot the
Plaintiff's request for an injunction against future searches and
interrogations.  The SSA Decision is not evidence that the
Defendants intend to search or interrogate the Plaintiffs in the
future.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs request an injunction
preventing the SSA from considering evidence obtained during the
Searches when making benefits determinations, the Court does not
have jurisdiction over that request.  The Judge therefore denied
the Motion for Reconsideration of the Berryhill Order.

On Sept. 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Villasenor and Sanchez Order, asserting
that the SSA Decision supports reconsideration of the Villasenor
and Sanchez Order.  The Judge concludes that the SSA Decision
does not qualify as newly discovered evidence with respect to the
Villasenor and Sanchez Order because the Plaintiffs were aware of
the SSA Decision sixteen days before the Court issued the
Villasenor and Sanchez Order.  He holds that the SSA Decision
does not justify reconsideration of the Villasenor and Sanchez
Order.

As to the Plaintiffs' only remaining claims, their claims for
damages against Defendants Hagar, Tran, Pilcher, and Patel, Judge
Hayes finds that the determinative feature of the Plaintiffs'
case is that it involves the Social Security program.  This fact
alone causes the Court to hesitate before concluding that the
Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or
instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of
allowing the Plaintiffs' damages action to proceed.
Consequently, he says there is a special factor counselling
hesitation, and the Plaintiffs Bivens claims for damages must be
dismissed.  Accordingly, he dismissed with prejudice their claims
for damages against Defendants Hagar, Tran, Pilcher, and Patel.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for
Defendants and against the Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rwSYsT from Leagle.com.

Mohammad Nassiri, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Diep Thi Nguyen, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Anh Van Thai, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Duc Huynh, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Trai
Chau, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Roes 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra
T. Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Everett Butcher, US Attorney's Office Criminal Division & Valerie
Torres, U.S. Attorney's Office.

William Villasenor & Dulce Sanchez, Defendants, represented by
Christie Bodnar Swiss -- cswiss@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins
Muir and Stewart LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres --
tguterres@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan
K. Lieber -- mlieber@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir Stewart.


UNITED STATES: Indonesian Christians Ordered to Check in at ICE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judi Currie, writing for Fosters.com, reports that dozens of
local Indonesians from the Somersworth and Dover area, who were
ordered to check in on Jan. 16 at the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement office, received relatively good news with most being
asked to return in a month or two for another check-in.

Attorneys representing local Indonesian Christians were scheduled
to return to federal court in Boston on Jan. 17 for a hearing on
their request to prevent deportation before the 51 people in the
suit have been given time to reopen their asylum cases.

According to the Rev. Sandra Pontoh, pastor of an Indonesian
Christian church in Madbury, who acts as a translator, it was not
clear why ICE had almost all of the locals check in on the same
day.

Since March, the American Friends Service Committee has been
organizing vigils in front of the Norris Cotton Federal Building
where ICE is housed on any day the immigrants are scheduled to
check in.

Volunteers and clergy from churches throughout the state,
carrying signs of support, do what is called the Jericho walk and
circle the building seven times.

Volunteers were also planning to be at federal court in Boston on
Jan. 17 to show support for the Indonesian community.

Christian Bentury, of Somersworth, was one of those told to
return in a month.  He was looking forward to the Jan. 17 hearing
and hoping for good news.

Mr. Bentury has been in the United States for about 20 years and
has lived in Somersworth for about 17 years.  He was impressed
with the people who turned out to support the immigrants.

"I didn't know there were people such as this. It is so cold and
they stand here and pray for us and march.  They don't even know
us," Mr. Bentury said.  "We keep praying for things to go well in
court on Jan. 17."

He said he cannot imagine returning to Indonesia after 20 years.

"If I go back there, it will be very hard to adjust," he said.
"Here I can speak freely.  There, I cannot."

He said religion was a big issue, and as a young man of 23, he
was subjected to insults and abuse daily.

A couple from Dover, with children who are U.S. citizens, was
told to come back in March and another couple from Somersworth
has to check back in February.

One man from Dover said it is gratifying to see people supporting
them. He said the company he works for has also been very
supportive.

In September, attorneys at Nixon Peabody LLP, with offices in
Boston and Manchester, filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order, a class-action complaint and a preliminary injunction.

Chief Judge Patti Saris at the U.S. District Court granted the
temporary restraining order in September just hours before a
couple from Somersworth was expected to leave the United States.

According to court documents, the Jan. 17 hearing was for the
preliminary injunction and Saris could also address the class-
action request.

The Indonesians were all told to get to the ICE office at 8:30
and were allowed into the lobby at 9 a.m.

There were also other immigrants checking in on Jan. 16,
including a man from Laos, who said he has a heart condition and
high blood pressure.

"To be honest I want to go home, but not to be deported," he
said. "This is the land of the free, the land of opportunity, one
can get a job and a good life here.  I still miss my family.  It
has been 25 years."

A Manchester man who escaped the violence in the Sudan was
checking in with his wife and one of his two young sons.

Iona Savulescu said she was born in the United States but her
husband, Sugrat Mohamed, came here with his mother for political
asylum.  His mother was eventually granted citizenship, but
Sugrat was not.

"He was 17 years old and he got into a car accident,"
Ms. Savulescu said. "He got in trouble because he didn't have a
driver's license. Anyone can make a mistake."

Another complication for her husband is that he has no birth
certificate and the county of Sudan is now divided into two
nations, north and south and he cannot prove he is from either.

"This has been a constant battle," Ms. Savulescu said.  "We have
spent thousands.  Here he works; he put himself through college
and supports his family." [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: UK Car Owners May Get Emissions Payout
-----------------------------------------------------
Camilla Canocchi, writing for Thisismoney.co.uk, reports that
British car owners affected by the Volkswagen emission scandal
could finally be in line for compensation as a class action for
claims in England and Wales is close to getting the green light.

Law firm Your Lawyers said it would act as a lead solicitor to
represent 10,000 UK drivers who bought VW cars fitted with
emission-cheating devices -- and that legal action was likely to
get the go-ahead in March.

The announcement spells hope for UK drivers who believe they were
duped and their car's value has been dented. The German car maker
has already made multi-billion dollar pay outs in US and Canada,
but has so far refused to pay off drivers in the UK.

"The agreement of roles between the various law firms involved
and the scope of the claims, means the class action is likely to
get the go ahead in March," said Your Lawyers.

VW first admitted it had used illegal software to cheat US
emissions test in September 2015.

Cars were recalled after it emerged that the "defeat devices"
were used so vehicles performed better during emissions tests
than under normal driving conditions.  The true emissions were
sometimes 30 times higher than permitted by official tests.

Since the scandal erupted more than two years ago, VW has been
attempting to fix the 1.2million cars affected, although a third
still remained unfixed as of September last year.

Why do owners think they should be compensated?
Your Lawyers said some of its clients have complained that their
cars became sluggish after updates were installed to "fix" the
so-called defeat devices.

Others have complained that the environmentally-friendly car they
thought they were buying was actually far more noxious than they
believed, while some have said fuel consumption was higher than
advertised.

Claimants in the group action have also complained that their car
has lost value because of the scandal -- a claim rejected by VW,
which added that depreciation rates for VW vehicles are in step
with those of other cars.

"Over a million Volkswagen owners have been lied to and deserve
compensation," Aman Johal, director of Your Lawyers said.

"The level of deceit perpetuated by the Volkswagen group is
beyond comprehension and amounts to one of the largest corporate
scandals of all time.  However, we are now reaching a critical
turning point in the UK to give innocent owners a means of
achieving compensation," he added.

VW said the statements made by Your Lawyers "do not raise
anything new" and added: "The claimants' application for a Group
Litigation Order (a GLO), which is the subject of the hearing at
the end of March, was filed 14 months ago.  The delay to the
progression of the GLO is the result of both a lack of
coordination between the claimant firms and a legal dispute which
arose between two of the claimant firms involved in the
litigation.

"Our consistent position has been that the instigation of legal
proceedings in England is premature for a number of reasons.  As
we have said all along, we will defend these claims robustly, and
we have made it clear to the claimant law firms that we do not
anticipate that any of our UK customers will have suffered loss
as a result of the NOx issue.

"We have implemented the technical measures in approximately
820,000 vehicles in the UK and in over 6 million vehicles across
Europe, with the overwhelming majority of customers in question
fully satisfied."

VW has so far refused to compensate UK drivers affected by the
scandal -- and even its Scrappage Upgrade scheme is not eligible
for the Euro 5 standard cars found to be cheating emissions
tests.

Launched in September last year, the scheme offers owners of
older Euro 1 to 4 diesel cars registered before 2010 discounts of
between ú1,000 and GBP8,000 on a range of new cleaner passenger
vehicles and commercial models -- though no benefit for those who
own cars affected by the dieselgate scandal.

Your Lawyers said these benefits did not affect the claim and
urged UK drivers who own a Volkswagen vehicle with a diesel EA189
engine, or other cars under the VW brand -- an Audi, Seat, Skoda
or Porsche -- to make a claim.

"There will be a cut-off point for any claims so drivers who
bought or leased these cars need to act fast," the law firm
added.

It estimates that, although the number of new UK cars affected is
about 1.2million, the number of potential claims could be almost
double at around 2.1million as also owners of second-hand
vehicles can make a claim.

Owners of affected cars can join the group action on Your
Lawyers' website.

Vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen, Audi, Seat or Skoda that may
qualify for compensation include:

   -- Those with a 1.2, 1.6 or 2.0 litre diesel engine vehicle
   -- Vehicles made between 2008 and 2015
   -- Vehicles purchased leased or acquired (new or used) before
1st January 2016
  -- Vehicles fitted with EA 189 EU5 engines may be affected
   -- Some models equipped exclusively with EA 189 diesel engines
are sixth generation Golf, seventh generation Passat, first
generation Tiguan
   -- New vehicles from the Volkswagen Group with EU 6 diesel
engines in EU may be affected
   -- Volkswagen Passenger Cars - 508,276
   -- Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles - 79,838
   -- Audi - 393,450
   -- SEAT - 76,773
   -- SKODA - 131,569
   -- Audi models affected may include the A1, A3, A4, A5, A6,
TT, Q3 and Q5 models Volkswagen also own Bentley, Bugatti,
Lamborghini, and Porsche.  Some of these vehicles may also be
affected.  [GN]


WARREN COUNTY, PA: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Simpson of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 37th
Judicial District denying Owners' motion for preliminary
injunction in the case, Barbara L. Yoder and Joseph I. Yoder,
Wife and Husband, Individually, and as Trustees of The Yoder
Family Trust No. 2 and Hardwood Mill Trust, v. Sugar Grove Area
Sewer Authority. Sugar Grove Area Sewer Authority, v. Barbara L.
Yoder and Joseph I. Yoder, Wife and Husband, Individually, and as
Trustees of The Yoder Family Trust No. 2 and Harwood Mill Trust.
Appeal of: Barbara L. Yoder and Joseph I. Yoder, Case No. 1927
C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmmw.).

The Yoders, individually and as Trustees of the Yoder Family
Trust No. 2 and Hardwood Mill Trust ("Owners") are Old Order
Amish.  They maintain a residence in Sugar Grove Township, which
is subject to a mandatory connection ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-
06-15.  Pursuant to the Mandatory Connection Ordinance, every
owner whose property abuts the Authority sewer system, will
connect, at the owner's cost, any structures located on the
property that are occupied or intended for human occupancy.
Although Owners' property is subject to the Mandatory Connection
Ordinance, one of the tenets of Owners' religion is to disavow
electricity.  As a result, Owners service their property with an
old-fashioned privy ("outhouse") without running water or
electricity.

This is the third related sewer-connection action, all involving
Owners in some fashion.  First, in prior litigation, the
Authority sought injunctive and declaratory relief to compel
Owners to connect to its system as mandated by the Mandatory
Connection Ordinance.  It also requested that Owners be removed
from the property to enable the Authority to connect the property
in a manner it deemed fit ("Prior Authority Litigation").

The Authority filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
After briefing and argument, the trial court granted the
Authority's motion in part, mandating Owners' connection to the
sewer system.  However, the trial court denied the Authority's
request to compel Owners to allow connection in a manner the
Authority deemed fit.  Relevant here, paragraph 5 of the 2013
Order provided that the Authority shall, in the process of
connecting the property to the sewer system, take due care as to
the Owners' religious convictions, and will proceed in a manner
so as to pose the least possible intrusion on their religious
convictions and beliefs.

Second, while the Prior Authority Litigation was pending, the Old
Order Amish, including Owners, brought a class action suit
against the Authority challenging the constitutionality of the
Mandatory Connection Ordinance.  Ultimately, President Judge
Maureen Skerda resolved the merits of the class action suit
against the Old Order Amish on Jan. 27, 2016.  The Court quashed
the appeal for failure to file post-trial motions.  The Supreme
Court then denied the petition for allowance of appeal on Nov.
22, 2016.

Third, the current litigation, an action for injunctive relief,
stems from disagreements regarding the means of connecting Owners
to the sewer system.  Initially, the Authority advised Owners by
letter that they must open an electric service account with
Penelec to power the grinder pump for their connection.  In
response, Owners filed the preliminary injunction petition
underlying the instant appeal.

In their Petition, Owners claimed that requiring them to use
electric service for the grinder pump, and open a Penelec account
for that purpose, violated their rights to religious freedom
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and
Article 1, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
protected by the Act.

The trial court held two days of hearings on the Petition.  Based
on the evidence presented, the trial court denied the preliminary
injunction.  The Owners appealed, and the Court reviewed the
matter.

In its Remand Opinion, the Court recognized the trial court
mandated Owners' connection to the sewer system in its 2013 Order
in the Prior Authority Litigation.  However, it held the trial
court erred in attempting to supersede its 2013 Order as to the
manner of connection.  It reinstated the mandate in paragraph 5
of the 2013 Order that the Authority employ the least intrusive
means of connection, accounting for the Owners' religious
beliefs.

On remand, based on the existing record, the trial court analyzed
whether the Owners met the six prerequisites for injunctive
relief.  The trial court also assessed whether a grinder pump
powered by electricity was the "least intrusive means" of
connecting to the sewer system.

In its August 2016 opinion on remand, the trial court determined
Owners met the irreparable harm element because the harm is
forcing an action (use of electricity) that would violate their
religious beliefs.  As to the second factor, whether greater harm
would result from refusing the injunction than granting it, the
trial court concluded Owners did not meet their burden.

The trial court also determined Owners failed to prove a clear
right to relief.  It also concluded that the Owners did not
establish that enjoining an electric connection would not
adversely affect the public interest.  It found that if it
enjoined the Authority from using an electric grinder pump, the
public would suffer a substantial harm.

Finally, as to the means of connection, the trial court found an
electric grinder pump was the only feasible option.  As a result,
the trial court found all options that required the privy to use
electricity were equally intrusive.  It also concluded installing
the pump on Owners' property caused no additional harm.

Owners filed motions challenging the trial court's August 2016
opinion and related order denying the Petition.  The trial court
denied Owners' post-trial motions by order dated Oct. 12, 2016.
The Owners appealed that order to the Court.

The trial court directed the Owners to file a concise statement
of the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.
1925(b).  They filed the statement, asserting the trial court
erred in applying the injunction factors, in placing the burden
of proof on Owners as to the least intrusive means, and in
ultimately denying injunctive relief.  The trial court then
issued an additional opinion under Rule 1925(a), incorporating
its August 2016 opinion.

Judge Simpson holds that the trial court's evaluation of the six
prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief comports with the
Court's Remand Opinion.  Based on the record, the trial court
determined that the Owners did not meet all of the prerequisites
for relief.  The Owners did not establish the injunction would
not harm the public, or that the harm in denying the injunction
outweighed the harm in granting it.

The Judge defers to the trial court's findings as to weighing the
harms and the adverse effect of an injunction on the public
health.  After several years of litigation on multiple fronts,
the Court recognizes a strong interest in accomplishing the
mandatory connection without further delay.  Because there are
apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court's denial of
preliminary injunctive relief, the Judge affirmed the order of
the Court of Common Pleas of the 37th Judicial District (Warren
County Branch).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/kYTKHW from Leagle.com.

Bernard J. Hessley, Hessley Law Offices, for Appellant, Joseph I.
Yoder.

Bernard J. Hessley, Hessley Law Offices, for Appellant, Barbara
L. Yoder.

Bernard J. Hessley, Hessley Law Offices, for Appellant, The Yoder
Family Trust No. 2.

Bernard J. Hessley, Hessley Law Offices, for Appellant, Hardwood
Mill Trust.

Andrea L. Stapleford, Stapleford & Byham, LLC, for Appellee,
Sugar Grove Area Sewer Authority.


WELLS FARGO: Sappington Appeals Ruling in "Williams" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Vladimir D. Bazelais, Karen Betz, Joseph Ingrando and
Livia Sappington filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Williams, et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01981, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Wells Fargo
Advisors has agreed to pay $3.5 million to former employees, who
sued the broker-dealer for requiring them to reimburse their
training costs if they sought to work in the financial services
industry within five years of leaving or being fired.

The agreement with Wells will establish a fund of $3.5 million
for compensation for lost overtime pay, training losses,
attorneys' fees and fund administration costs.  All class members
will automatically receive a check based on how many weeks they
worked in non-exempt positions, with a minimum of $100 per
person.

Contrary to most wage-and-hour settlements, Wells Fargo will not
be able to collect any unusued money in the funds, according to
the papers.

The Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek 25% of the settlement fund,
or $875,000, as attorney fees, which they say is less than the
standard one-third contingent fee negotiated by the Plaintiffs.
They also are asking $50,000 in service awards.

Erika Williams, one of the four trainees who brought the lawsuit,
was also a lead plaintiff in a discrimination suit that settled
in January 2017 for $35.5 million.  She and other African
American financial advisors claimed in that suit that Wells
Fargo's policies, including the training cost reimbursement,
disproportionately affected minorities because they had higher
failure rates in the training programs.

The appellate case is captioned as Livia Sappington, et al. v.
Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, Case No. 18-1004, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief due is on or before February 12, 2018, for
Vladimir D. Bazelais, Karen Betz, Joseph Ingrando and Livia
Sappington.[BN]

Plaintiffs WALTER RICHARDSON, MICHAEL FRANK and JAMES TULLY are
represented by:

          James B. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF J. BRYAN WOOD
          303 W. Madison
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 544-8600
          E-mail: bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com

Plaintiff ERIKA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Linda Debra Friedman, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com

Objectors-Appellants KAREN BETZ, JOSEPH INGRANDO, LIVIA
SAPPINGTON and VLADIMIR D. BAZELAIS are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO ADVISORS LLC is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Turnbull, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0000
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 432-9652
          E-mail: Kturnbull@morganlewis.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Dzielak" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Whirlpool Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Charlene Dzielak, et al. v. Whirlpool Corp,
et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-00089, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that some models of Whirlpool washing machines
were improperly marketed as Energy Star-qualified, saying the
claims were preempted because the federal government had
exclusive control of the energy-efficiency program.

Filed in 2012, the lawsuit asserts that advertisement for
Whirlpool's Maytag Centennial washing machines promised lower
energy bills for consumers, who bought the more expensive, Energy
Star-certified machines.  However, the Plaintiffs contend their
energy bills actually increased since purchasing the machines in
2009.

The appellate case is captioned as Charlene Dzielak, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corp, et al., Case No. 18-8002, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CHARLENE DZIELAK, SHELLEY BAKER, FRANCIS
ANGELONE, BRIAN MAXWELL, JEFFREY MCLENNA, JEFFREY REID, KARI
PARSONS, CHARLES BEYER, JONATHAN COHEN and JENNIFER SCHRAMM are
represented by:

          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Audra E. Petrolle, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com
                  apetrolle@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
          Telephone: (201) 630-8820
          E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com

Plaintiff-Respondent ASPASIA CHRISTY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com

Defendant-Petitioner WHIRLPOOL CORP is represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Allison R. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Eric L. Robertson, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: williams@wtotrial.com
                  mclaughlin@wtotrial.com
                  robertson@wtotrial.com

Defendants-Respondents SEARS HOLDING CORP, FRY ELECTRONICS INC
and LOWES HOME CENTERS LLC are represented by:

          David R. Kott, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
          100 Mulberry Street
          Four Gateway Center, 14th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 622-4444
          E-mail: dkott@mccarter.com

Defendant-Respondent HOME DEPOT INC is represented by:

          Nicholas Stevens, Esq.
          STARR, GERN, DAVISON & RUBIN, PC
          105 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 401
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 403-9200
          Facsimile: (973) 226-0031
          E-mail: nstevens@starrgern.com


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Conditional Certification in "Shaw" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM SHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WIZARDS OF THE
COAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01924-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

This is an unconventional wage and hour suit brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendant, to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation to which they contend they are entitled
because they performed "work" for the benefit of the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has a policy of
treating them and other similarly situated putative class members
as volunteers instead of employees and refusing to pay them for
their "work."

The Defendant sells products relating to a fantasy collectible
card game called "Magic: the Gathering."  It organizes, promotes,
sponsors and administers an extensive and highly regulated system
of "Events" for its customers.  The Events are used as a
marketing tool to keep customers active in playing Magic and to
give the Defendant a means to sell magic products.  The
Plaintiffs are certified Judges.

The activities necessary to conduct the Defendant's Events are
carried out by the Judges.  Becoming a Judge "requires"
registering with the Defendant, going through training and
testing, and documenting Magic game-play at Events.

The Judges are expected to read and stay apprised of extensive
announcements, directives, instructions, rulings, and discussions
disseminated by the Defendant, to provide their contact
information to Defendant, to create reports, to renew their
certifications with regular testing, to recruit and train other
Judges, to provide detailed evaluations of other Judges, and to
administer Defendant's policies and procedures on the Defendant's
behalf.

Outside of Events, Defendant "uses" Judges as representatives to
retailers and players.  The Judges "are expected" to provide
customer service, instruction and support to retailers and
players, and to investigate and submit reports regarding
retailers' and players' compliance with Defendant's policies.

The Plaintiffs allege that the work performed by Judges for the
benefit of the Defendant is performed under close supervision and
control by it that creates an employer-employee relationship
which obligates the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Judges wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code.

Based on the foregoing, they assert ten separate causes of
action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages for
work performed at Magic Events in violation of the FLSA; (2)
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor
Code ("CLC") and applicable IWC Wage Orders; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed at Magic Events in violation of
CLC Sections 204, 510, 1194, 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders;
(4) failure to provide meal periods in violation of CLC Sections
226.7, 512 and applicable IWC Wage Orders; (5) failure to provide
rest periods in violation of CLC Section 226.7 and applicable IWC
Wage Orders; (6) failure to reimburse for business expenses
incurred during two to three-day tournaments in violation of CLC
Section 2802; (7) late payment of wages in violation of CLC
Section 204; (8) failure to furnish timely and accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of CLC Sections 226 and 226.3; (9)
unfair business practices in violation of California Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (10) penalties pursuant to CLC
Section 2699 et seq.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for an order (1)
conditionally certifying the case as a collective action on
behalf of all individuals who participated as "Magic: the
Gathering" judges at events sanctioned by the Defendant from
April 12, 2013, through the resolution of the case; (2)
authorizing the parties to send notices pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) to all potential opt-in Plaintiffs informing them
that they may join this action and assert claims under the FLSA;
(3) approving their proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit
and Consent to Join forms; (4) directing Defendant to produce a
putative class action member list with contact information; and
(5) approving the designation of Kurtzman Carson Consultants as
the Class Administrator.

Having reviewed the allegations and evidence submitted by both
sides, Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
carry their burden of demonstrating that they and the putative
class were the victims of a single decision, policy or plan.  At
its core, their allegation is that Defendant has a policy of
treating the Judges as volunteers, not employees, and refusing to
pay the Judges wages.  The present case, however, is
distinguishable from the two volunteer cases relied upon by the
Plaintiffs.

In addition, the Judge finds no comparable agreement reflecting a
single decision, policy or plan by the Defendant to treat the
Judges as volunteers and to refuse to pay Judges compensation.
The Defendant has not taken the position that the Judges are
volunteers.  Instead, the Defendant asserts that the Judges
participate in Events under a number of unique employment and/or
independent contractor arrangements.  The Defendant's
uncontroverted evidence fully supports their assertion.

The Judge concludes that in the absence of evidence of a single
decision, policy or plan governing the engagement and
compensation of Judges at sanctioned Events, adjudication of the
Plaintiffs' claims would require an individualized Plaintiff-by-
Plaintiff analysis of the specific circumstances under which each
Plaintiff "worked" as a Judge at every one of the over one
million sanctioned events that were conducted by stores,
tournament organizers and/or Defendant throughout the United
States.  Under these circumstances, it would not serve judicial
economy to adjudicate the potential claims of a nation-wide
putative class consisting of approximately 3,850 Judges in a
single action.

For these reasons, Judge Davila denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.  A case management conference is
scheduled for Jan. 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.  The parties will file
an updated joint case management conference statement no later
than Jan. 15, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PjP1uf from Leagle.com.

Adam Shaw, Peter Golightly, Justin Turner & Joshua Stansfield,
Plaintiffs, represented by David Borgen -- dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
-- Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, James Kan --
jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Katharine
Lindsay Fisher -- kfisher@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen
Dardarian Ho, Michael Malk -- mm@malklawfirm.com -- Michael Malk,
ESQ, APC, Reuben D. Nathan -- rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com --
Nathan & Associates, APC, Ross Christophe Cornell --
ross.law@me.com -- Law Ofc Ross Cornell & Matthew Righetti,
Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Wizards of the Coast, LLC, Defendant, represented by Shaun Jordan
Voigt -- svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP,
Catharine M. Morisset -- cmorisset@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher
and Phillips LLP & Karl Robert Lindegren --
klindegren@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP.


WOODLAKE COUNTRY CLUB: Lawsuit Goes Forward as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve DeVane, writing for The Fayeteville Observer, reports that
a Superior Court judge ruled January 19 that a lawsuit filed by
residents of Woodlake Country Club can go forward as a class
action suit.

Judge James M. Webb issued an order certifying the class action.
Representatives of the corporation were not at a hearing on the
matter January 19, according to the order.

The corporation failed to respond to the lawsuit by a deadline
last month, prompting a clerk in Moore County Superior Court to
enter a statement of default against it. The residents hope to
receive a default judgment from the court.

Attempts through email were unsuccessful to get comment from
corporation representatives.

Webb's order allows the lawsuit to proceed on behalf of about
1,580 people who own property in Woodlake. They will be notified
of the matter by mail and must give notice in writing if they
don't want to participate.

The suit, which was filed by residents of the Woodlake community
in October, alleges that they have been harmed by the failure of
the corporation to maintain the dam. The state breached the dam
last year, leaving mostly empty the 1,200-acre lake that
residents once used for boating, swimming, fishing and water
skiing.

Part of the dam's spillway collapsed in October 2016 after heavy
rain from Hurricane Matthew. State officials were concerned that
the dam might fail and evacuated residents downstream.

Webb issued a consent order March 15 requiring the corporation to
complete construction of a temporary full breach of the dam by
June 28. State officials declared an emergency on June 9, saying
the corporation would not be able to meet the deadline.

The state hired engineering and consulting companies to breach
the dam, which has been completed.

The lawsuit says the corporation continues to advertise
"lakefront" lots in the subdivision. The lake, which the company
describes as the "centerpiece" of the community, has become a
"quagmire," the suit says.

The corporation's actions caused damage to the residents of
$25,000 or more, according to the lawsuit. [GN]


XUNLEI LIMITED: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Xunlei Limited
("Xunlei" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XNET) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Xunlei
securities during the period between October 10, 2017 and January
11, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/xnet.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Xunlei had engaged in unlawful financial activity; (2)
OneCoin was a form of disguised Initial Coin Offering; (3) Xunlei
was engaged in the promotion of an Initial Miner Offering; and
(4) consequently, Defendants' statements about Xunlei's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 12, 2017, Xunlei initiated its blockchain-based
product "OneCoin" to the market. Xunlei customers could then
receive OneCoin for contributing their bandwidth and use OneCoin
to purchase Company products, goods and services.

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/xnetor 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 Xunlei you have until March 20, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  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.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
                peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


YAMBO INC: "Pavon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------
Martha Cecilia Rostran Pavon, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Yambo, Inc., Armando Perez, Sr., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-20108, (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2018), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment
period along with court costs, interest, and any other relief
that the Court finds reasonable under the circumstances.

Pavon worked for Yambo Inc., a Nicaraguan restaurant, located at
1642 SW Flagler Terr., in Miami, Florida 33135.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


YELP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, announces that a class action has been
filed against Yelp, Inc. ("Yelp" or the "Company") (NYSE: YELP)
and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Azar v. Yelp, Inc. et al, 3:18-
cv-00400), alleges that from February 10, 2017 through May 9,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the defendants misled Yelp
investors regarding the retention rates for existing customers,
as well as revenues and growth rates for the Company's new
customers. The complaint also alleges that Yelp CEO Jeremy
Stoppelman personally benefited from withholding such information
by selling more than 20% of his shares of Yelp for more than
$25,000,000 while allegedly in possession of material nonpublic
information regarding Yelp's financial results.

Yelp announced its first quarter 2017 financial results on May 9,
2017, in which it revised its full year 2017 guidance downward to
reflect poor retention rates with its customers. On this news,
Yelp's stock price fell more than 18%, causing millions in losses
to investors.

If you purchased Yelp shares during the Class Period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 19, 2018.  As a member of the class, you may seek to file a
motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain
an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the
litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-
5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/yelp.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been
prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and
institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered
billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's
investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by
the New York Times.

         CONTACT:

         Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Tel: (617) 398-5600
         Email: bradley@blockesq.com [GN]


YELP INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Yelp,
Inc. (NYSE:YELP) ("Yelp" or the "Company") securities during the
period between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until March 19, 2018 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Yelp securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Yelp's
transition from a Cost-Per-Thousand-Impressions (CPM) to a Cost-
Per-Click (CPC) model in fiscal year 2016 created a distinct
cohort of local advertisers that would reach the end of their
contracts during the first part of fiscal year 2017, new
customers that signed on with Yelp under the CPC pricing model
had lower retention rates because the customers did not
effectively compete with Yelp's more established customers, and
as a result of the lower retention rates, Yelp was not on track
to achieve its financial guidance during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, following a May 9, 2017 announcement
that the Company was lowering its guidance, that the local
advertising accounts did not rise as expected, and the retention
rates impacted expectations, the value of Yelp shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Yelp securities purchased on or after February 10, 2017 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


YELP INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Yelp, Inc. (NYSE:YELP) securities
between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until March 19, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that defendants misled Yelp investors
regarding the retention rates for existing customers, and
revenues and growth rates for the Company's new customers. It
further alleges that Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman personally
benefited from withholding such information by selling millions
of dollars' worth of Yelp shares while allegedly in possession of
material nonpublic information regarding the Company's poor
financial results.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Yelp securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Yelp, Inc. lawsuit, please
go to http://www.bespc.com/yelp.For additional information about
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to www.bespc.com.

         Contacts
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


YELP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP discloses that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Yelp
Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between
February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased Yelp securities during the Class Period
may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/yelp-inc#join

Yelp investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Yelp operates a social networking, user review, and local search
website. The Company provides the site as a guide for visitors to
find reviews and details about local businesses.

On February 9, 2017, Yelp reported Fiscal 2016 financial and
operational results, and provided a "business outlook" for Fiscal
2017. For Fiscal 2017, the Company reported that "net revenue is
expected to be in the range of $880 million to $900 million" and
that adjusted EBITDA "is expected to be in the range of $150
million to $165 million."

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Yelp and
certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yelp's
transition from a Cost-Per-Thousand-Impressions ("CPM") to a
Cost-Per-Click ("CPC") model in Fiscal 2016 created a distinct
cohort of local advertisers that would reach the end of their
contracts during the first part of Fiscal 2017; (ii) new
customers that signed on with Yelp under the CPC pricing model
had lower retention rates because the customers did not
effectively compete with Yelp's more established customers; and
(iii) that, as a result of the lower retention rates, Yelp was
not on track to achieve its financial guidance or results during
the Class Period.

On May 9, 2017, Yelp reported its First Quarter 2017 financial
and operational results and reduced its Fiscal 2017 business
outlook. Specifically, the Company announced that it had
decreased its net revenue outlook for Fiscal 2017 down to $850 --
$865 million from $880 -- $900 million, and that it had decreased
its adjusted EBITDA outlook for Fiscal 2017 down to $130 -- $145
million from $150 -- $165 million.

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $6.37
per share, or over 18.3%, to close on May 10, 2017 at $28.33 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Investors who purchased Yelp securities during the Class Period
may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world. The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

         CONTACT:

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
              (610) 667-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court Refuses to Reassign Inmates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DAVID HEDRICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES GRANT,
et al., Defendants. Estate of BERTRAM HISCOCK, deceased, by and
through VINCENT HISCOCK, as Administrator; SHERRICK HISCOCK,
Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF YUBA; COUNTY OF SUTTER; SHERIFF-CORONER
STEVEN L. DURFOR, in his individual capacities and official
capacities; TONY HOBSON, in his individual and official
capacities; JOAN ODOM, M.D., in her individual capacity,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB, 2:17-cv-02706-JAM-
GGH (E.D. Cal.), Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California refused to
reassign case number 2:17-cv-02706-JAM-GGH as a related to case
number 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB.

The Plaintiffs' claims for relief arise from the death by suicide
of Bertram Hiscock in the Yuba County Jail on Jan. 29, 2017, and
are based on violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
California state law.  They Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
failed to provide Mr. Hiscock with necessary and adequate medical
and mental health treatment, were deliberately indifferent to
serious risk of harm, and discriminated on the basis of
psychiatric disability.

Hedrick v. Grant is a class action against Yuba County officials
on behalf of inmates incarcerated at Yuba County Jail and a
Consent Decree was entered by the Court in that action in 1979
that, inter alia, relates to provision of medical and mental
health treatment and suicide prevention at the Jail.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the counsel for the Plaintiffs in case number
2:17-cv-02706-JAM-GGH filed a Notice of Related Cases, in which
it seeks to have its case related to case number 2:76-cv-00162-
GEB-EFB.  Judge Burrell held that the action will not be
reassigned as a related case because it has not been shown that
assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial
savings in judicial effort.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BiMhOX from Leagle.com.

David Hedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Glenn Spore --
aspore@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Benjamin
Joseph Bien-Kahn -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic
UC Davis School of Law, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld --
ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Michael
Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Devin
W. Mauney -- dmauney@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
LLP, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Ilene Janet Jacobs,
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. & Michael Louis Freedman
-- mfreedman@rbgg.com --  Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO.

Dale Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Glenn Spore,
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn,
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall
Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law, Fred H. Altshuler,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Rosen Bien Galvan
and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP,
Devin W. Mauney, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael Louis
Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO.

James Grant & Yuba County, Defendants, represented by Ashley M.
Wisniewski -- awisniewski@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, Carl
L. Fessenden -- cfessenden@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC,
John Riley Vacek -- jvacek@co.yuba.ca.us -- County of Yuba County
Counsel & John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -
- Porter Scott, APC.

Estate of Bertram Hiscock, Unknown, represented by Lori Rifkin,
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP.


ZILLOW GROUP: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted Jo Ann Offutt,
Raymond Harris, and Johanna Choy ("Movants")'s  motion to
consolidate, for appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs, and approval
of their choice of counsel in the case, JAMES SHOTWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ZILLOW GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-
1387-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The case involves two related class action lawsuits brought
against Zillow, its CEO Spencer Rascoff, and its CFO Kathleen
Philips for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  On Aug. 22, 2017, Stephen Vargosko filed a class action
lawsuit against Defendants in the Central District of California.
Vargosko's counsel immediately filed notice pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 advising the
potential class members of the alleged claims and the deadline
for filing a motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff.  On
Oct. 23, 2017, the Movants filed a motion in the Vargosko Action
to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs and approve their selected
counsel.

On Sept. 14, 2017, Shotwell filed his complaint against the
Defendants in the Court.  His lawsuit alleges essentially the
same claims and facts as the Vargosko Action.  On Nov. 15, 2017,
the parties to the Vargosko Action stipulated to a transfer to
the Court in anticipation that the suits would be consolidated.
The Movants file the renewed motion asking the Court for three
things: (1) to consolidate the Vargosko Action and Shotwell
Action (as well as other related cases filed in the future); (2)
to appoint the Movants as the Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to PSLRA;
and (3) approve the Movants' selection of the lead and the local
counsel.

Judge Coughenour finds that the Vargosko and Shotwell actions
share common questions of fact and law and it is appropriate to
consolidate these matters for all purposes.  Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), he will grant the Movants motion
to consolidate.

The Judge further finds that the Movants have made a prima facie
showing that they would satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) as
the Lead Plaintiffs.  The alleged class, all individuals who
purchased Zillow securities during the class period, is
sufficiently large that joinder is impracticable.  The similarity
of the allegations made by class members demonstrates that the
Movants' claims are typical of the class claims.  The Judge finds
a rebuttable presumption that the Movants are the most adequate
Plaintiffs to serve as the Lead Plaintiffs.  Therefore he will
grant the Movants' motion to be appointed as Lead plaintiffs of
the putative class.

The Judge also finds that the proposed Lead Counsel are qualified
and experienced to conduct the litigation and protect the
interests of the class.  Accordingly, he will approve the
Movants' selection of the Lead Counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Coughenour granted the Movants' motion
to consolidate, for appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs, and
approval of the Plaintiff's choice of counsel.  In accordance
with this ruling, he consolidated the Shotwell Action (Case No.
2:17-cv-01387-JCC) and Vargosko Action (Case No. 2:17-cv-01721-
JCC) for all purposes including, but not limited to, discovery,
pretrial proceedings and trial proceedings pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).  The docket in Case No. 2:17-cv-
01387-JCC will constitute the Master Docket for the action.

Every pleading filed in the consolidated action will bear the
following caption: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WASHINGTON In re Zillow Group, Inc. Master File: C17-1387-JCC
Securities Litigation CLASS ACTION.

The file in civil action No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC will constitute a
master file for every action in the consolidated action.  When
the document being filed pertains to all actions, the phrase "All
Actions" will appear immediately after the phrase "This Document
Relates To:" When a pleading applies to some, but not all, of the
actions, the document will list, immediately after the phrase
"This Document Relates To:", the docket number for each
individual action to which the document applies, along with the
last name of the first-listed plaintiff in said action.

All Securities Class Actions subsequently filed in, or
transferred to, the District will be consolidated into the
action.  The Order will apply to every such action, absent an
order of the Court.  A party objecting to such consolidation, or
to any other provisions of the Order, must file an application
for relief from the Order within 10 days after the date on which
a copy of the Order is mailed to the party's counsel.

The Order is entered without prejudice to the rights of any party
to apply for severance of any claim or action, with good cause
shown.

Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and Section 27(a)(3)(B) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(3)(B), the Movants are appointed
as the Lead Plaintiffs of the Class, as the Movants have the
largest financial interest in the litigation and otherwise
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Their choice of counsel is approved, and accordingly, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. is appointed as the Lead Counsel and Hall & George
PLLC is appointed as the Local Counsel.  The Lead Counsel, after
being appointed by the Court, will manage the prosecution of the
litigation.

Within 14 days from the issuance of the Order, the counsel for
the parties will meet and confer regarding a deadline for filing
an amended complaint and a briefing schedule for any motions to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and then propose such schedule for the Court's
approval.

Judge Coughenour directed the Clerk to schedule a status
conference for this matter on Feb. 20, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/54XvRn from Leagle.com.

Jo Ann Offutt, Movant, represented by Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice,
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
PA, pro hac vice, Colin M. George -- cgeorge@hallgeorge.com --
HALL & GEORGE PLLC, J. Alexander Hood, III -- ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac
vice.

Raymond Harris & Johanna Choy, Movants, represented by Jonathan
Stern , THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice, Colin M. George, HALL &
GEORGE PLLC, J. Alexander Hood, III, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, POMERANATZ
LLP, pro hac vice.

Stephen Vargosko, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stern, THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice & Colin M. George, HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

Zillow Group Inc, Spencer M. Rascoff & Kathleen Philips,
Defendants, represented by Alexander Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac
vice & Meryl L. Young -- myoung@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER, pro hac vice.


* Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Key Trends in Workplace Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, wrote that "As our 2018 Workplace Class Action Report
describes, 2017 was quite an interesting year for employers in
terms of class certification rulings. Though courts issued many
favorable class certification rulings for the plaintiffs' bar
this year, new defense approaches and case law precedents
resulted in positive outcomes for employers in opposing class
certification requests.  In this blog, readers are given a
certification breakdown by type of class action, as well as a
look into evolving case law and "magnet" jurisdictions that
provided obstacles for employers in 2017. Check out the extensive
analysis below!

Anecdotally, surveys of corporate counsel confirm that complex
workplace litigation -- and especially class action and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits -- remains one of the chief exposures driving
corporate legal budgetary expenditures, as well as the type of
legal dispute that causes the most concern for companies.

The prime component in that array of risks is now indisputably
complex wage & hour litigation.

Wage & Hour Certification Trends
While plaintiffs continued to achieve robust numbers of initial
conditional certification rulings of wage & hour collective
actions in 2017, employers also secured significant victories in
defeating conditional certification motions and obtaining
decertification of Sec. 216(b) collective actions.  The
percentage of successful motions for decertification brought by
employers rose by nearly 18% in 2017.  This was the highest
success rate over the past decade.

Most significantly, for only the second time in over a decade,
and for the second year in a row, wage & hour lawsuit filings in
federal courts decreased.  That being said, the volume of FLSA
lawsuit filings for the preceding four years -- during 2014,
2015, 2016, and 2017 -- is the greatest in the last several
decades.

As a result, an increase in FLSA filings over the past several
years had caused the issuance of more FLSA certification rulings
than in any other substantive area of complex employment
litigation -- 257 certification rulings in 2017, as compared to
the 224 certification rulings in 2016 and 175 certification
rulings in 2015.

The statistical underpinnings of this circuit-by-circuit analysis
of FLSA certification rulings is telling in several respects.

First, it substantiates that the district courts within the Ninth
Circuit and the Second Circuit are the epi-centers of wage & hour
class actions and collective actions. More cases were prosecuted
and conditionally certified -- 48 certification orders in the
Ninth Circuit and 39 certification orders in the Second Circuit
-- in the district courts in those circuits than in any other
areas of the country.  The district courts in the Fifth, Sixth,
and Seventh Circuits were not far behind, with 30, 26, and 24
certification orders respectively in those jurisdictions.

Second, as the burdens of proof reflect under 29 U.S.C. Sec
216(b), plaintiffs won the overwhelming majority of "first stage"
conditional certification motions (170 of 233 rulings, or
approximately 73%).  However, in terms of "second stage"
decertification motions, employers prevailed in a majority of
those cases (15 of 24 rulings, or approximately 63% of the time).

The "first stage" conditional certification statistics for
plaintiffs at 73% for 2017 are aligned to the numbers in 2016,
when plaintiffs won 75% of "first stage" conditional
certification motions.  However, employers fared much better in
2017 on "second stage" decertification motions. Employers won
decertification at a rate of 63%, which was up from 45% in 2016
and 36% in 2015.

Third, this reflects that there has been an on-going migration of
skilled plaintiffs' class action lawyers into the wage & hour
litigation space.  Experienced and able plaintiffs' class action
counsel typically secure better results.  Further, securing
initial "first stage" conditional certification -- and foisting
settlement pressure on an employer -- can be done quickly (almost
right after the case is filed), with a minimal monetary
investment in the case (e.g., no expert is needed, unlike the
situation when certification is sought in an employment
discrimination class action or an ERISA class action), and
without having to conduct significant discovery (per the case law
that has developed under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)).

As a result, to the extent litigation of class actions and
collective actions by plaintiffs' lawyers is viewed as an
investment of time and money, prosecution of wage & 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. Finally, as
success in litigation often begets copy-cat filings, that the
value of top wage & hour settlements in 2017 topped $525 million
-- and over $1.2 billion in the last two years -- is likely to
prompt more litigation in 2018.

Hence, as compared to ERISA and employment discrimination class
actions, FLSA litigation is less difficult or protracted for the
plaintiffs' bar, and more cost-effective and predictable.  In
terms of their "rate of return," the plaintiffs' bar can convert
their case filings more readily into certification orders, and
create the conditions for opportunistic settlements over shorter
periods of time.  The certification statistics for 2017 confirm
these factors.

Employment Discrimination & ERISA Certification Trends
At the same time, the rulings in Wal-Mart and Comcast also fueled
more critical thinking and crafting of case theories in
employment discrimination and ERISA class action filings in 2017.
The Supreme Court's two Rule 23 decisions have had the effect of
forcing the plaintiffs' bar to "re-boot" the architecture of
their class action theories.  At least one result was the
decision two years ago in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct.
1036 (2016), in which the Supreme Court accepted the plaintiffs'
arguments that, in effect, appeared to soften the requirements
previously imposed in Wal-Mart and Comcast for maintaining and
proving class claims, at least in wage & hour litigation.

Hence, it is clear that the playbook on Rule 23 strategies is
undergoing a continuous process of evolution.  Filings of
"smaller" employment discrimination class actions have increased
due to a strategy whereby state or regional-type classes are
asserted more often than the type of nationwide mega-cases that
Wal-Mart discouraged.  In essence, at least in the employment
discrimination area, the plaintiffs' litigation playbook is more
akin to a strategy of "aim small to secure certification, and if
unsuccessful, then miss small."

In turn, employment-related class certification motions outside
of the wage & hour area were a mixed bag or tantamount to a "jump
ball" in 2017, as 7 of the 11 were granted and 4 of the 11 were
denied.

The following map demonstrates this array of certification
rulings in Title VII and ADEA discrimination cases:

In terms of the ERISA class action litigation scene in 2017, the
focus continued to rest on precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court
as it shaped and refined the scope of potential liability and
defenses in ERISA class actions.

The Wal-Mart decision also has changed the ERISA certification
playing field by giving employers more grounds to oppose class
certification.  The decisions in 2017 show that class
certification motions have the best chance of denial in the
context of ERISA welfare plans, and ERISA defined contribution
pension plans, where individualized notions of liability and
damages are prevalent.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs were more successful than defendants in
litigating certification motions in ERISA class actions, as
plaintiffs won 17 of 22 certification rulings in 2017.

Overall Trends
So what conclusions overall can be drawn on class certification
trends in 2017?

In the areas of employment discrimination, wage & hour, and
ERISA, the plaintiffs' bar is converting their case filings into
certification of classes at a high rate.  To the extent class
certification aids the plaintiffs' bar in monetizing their
lawsuit filings and converting them into class action
settlements, the conversion rate is robust.

Whereas class certification was somewhat of a coin toss for
employment discrimination cases (7 motions granted and 4 motions
denied in 2017), class certification is relatively easier in
ERISA cases (17 motions granted and 5 motions denied in 2017),
but most prevalent in wage & hour litigation (with 170
conditional certification motions granted and 63 motions denied,
as well as 15 decertification motions granted and 9 motions
denied).

The following bar graph details the win/loss percentages in each
of these substantive areas:

  -- a 64% success rate for certification of employment
discrimination class actions (both Title VII and age
discrimination cases);
   -- a 77% success rate for certification of ERISA class
actions; and,
a 73% success rate for conditional certification of wage & hour
collective actions.

Obviously, the most certification activity in workplace class
action litigation is in the wage & hour space.

The trend over the last three years in the wage & hour space
reflects a steady success rate that ranged from a low of 70% to a
high of 76% (with 2017 right in the middle at 73%) for the
plaintiffs' bar, which is tilted toward plaintiff-friendly
"magnet" jurisdictions were the case law favors workers and
presents challenges to employers seeking to block certification.

Yet, the key statistic in 2017 for employers was an increase in
the odds of successful decertification of wage & hour cases to
63%, as compared to 45% in 2016, 36% in 2015, and 52% in 2014.

The on-going defense of litigation and participation in discovery
following conditional certification is often an expensive
proposition for employers, and many choose to settle to avoid
that scenario.  However, for employers that face the costs of
discovery and then litigate decertification motions, the pay-off
in 2017 was a fracturing of cases at the highest success rate in
over a decade -- a decertification percentage of 63%.

While each case is different and no two class actions or
collective actions are identical, these statistics paint the all-
too familiar picture that employers have experienced over the
last several years.  The new wrinkle to influence these factors
in 2017 was the Supreme Court's ruling in 2016 in Tyson Foods.
To the extent it assists plaintiffs in their certification
theories, future certification decisions may well trend further
upward for workers.

Implications For Employers
For employers, there are multiple lessons to be drawn from these
trends in 2017.

First, while the Wal-Mart ruling undoubtedly heightened
commonality standards under Rule 23(a)(2) starting in 2011, and
the Comcast decision tightened the predominance factors at least
for damages under Rule 23(b) in 2013, the plaintiffs' bar has
crafted theories and "work arounds" to maintain or increase their
chances of successfully securing certification orders. In 2017,
their certification numbers were consistent with levels in the
last several years.

Second, the defense-minded decisions in Wal-Mart and Comcast have
not taken hold in any significant respect in the context of FLSA
certification decisions for wage & hour cases.  Efforts by the
defense bar to use the commonality standards from Wal-Mart and
the predominance analysis from Comcast have not impacted the
ability of the plaintiffs' bar to secure first-stage conditional
certification orders under 29 U.S.C. Sec 216(b).  If anything,
the ruling two years ago in Tyson Foods has made certification
prospects even easier for plaintiffs in the wage & hour space,
insofar as conditional certification motions are concerned.

Third, while monetary relief in a Rule 23(b)(2) context is
severely limited, certification is the "holy grail" in class
action litigation, and certification of any type of class -- even
a non-monetary injunctive relief class claim -- often drives
settlement decisions.  This is especially true for employment
discrimination and ERISA class actions, as plaintiffs' lawyers
can recover awards of attorneys' fees under fee-shifting statutes
in an employment litigation context. In this respect, the
plaintiffs' bar is nothing if not ingenuous, and targeted
certification theories (e.g., issue certification on a limited
discrete aspect of a case) are the new norm in federal and state
courthouses.

Fourth, during the certification stage, courts are more willing
than ever before to assess facts that overlap with both
certification and merits issues, and to apply a more practical
assessment of the Rule 23(b) requirement of predominance, which
focuses on the utility and superiority of a preclusive class-wide
trial of common issues.  Courts are also more willing to apply a
heightened degree of scrutiny to expert opinions offered to
establish proof of the Rule 23 requirements.

In sum, notwithstanding these shifts in proof standards and the
contours of judicial decision-making, the likelihood of class
certification rulings favoring plaintiffs are not only "alive and
well" in the post-Wal-Mart and post-Comcast era, but also
thriving. [GN]


* TDs Call for Tracker Mortgage Scandal Class Action v. Banks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Irish Times reports that the banking culture which led to the
current tracker mortgage scandal will not change until the banks
are pursued through the courts, the Oireachtas finance committee
heard on Jan. 15.

Chairman John McGuinness, of Fianna Fail, and Sinn Fein's Pearse
Doherty called on Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, who was
appearing before the committee, to support class-action
legislation, which would allow victims of widespread harm to come
together in search of collective redress.

Mr Doherty said banks were "getting away with the biggest theft
in the history of the State" with almost EUR1 billion wrongly
denied to low-cost tracker mortgage-holders and yet the
legislation had not provided them with an efficient route to
legal redress.

Scenario
If the same scenario was played out in Iceland, Mr Doherty said,
the banks would face criminal prosecution for theft.  "If it was
in America you would have bankers walked out of their
institutions with handcuffs," he added.

Mr Doherty said his party had drafted class-action legislation on
foot of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission.

Echoing Mr Doherty's comments, Mr McGuinness said that until such
class-action cases were taken against individual banks, they were
unlikely to clean up their acts or change their culture.

Powers
Mr Donohoe stopped short of saying his party would support class-
action legislation, noting he had not considered it and that it
was not specific to financial services, but he indicated he would
support beefing up Central Bank's regulatory powers.

"My current view is that the legal framework is in place to deal
with this matter and the test of that will be work that the
Central Bank can do," he said.

The Central Bank's trawl into affected customers has uncovered
more than 33,700 cases where the banks either denied customers
their right to a low-cost mortgage linked to the ECB's main
lending rate or applied the incorrect rate.

Earlier, he acknowledged there were currently no public interest
directors on the boards of any of the State-owned banks. [GN]


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Ct. Has Jurisdiction on Worker's Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire Insurance Company seeks to obtain a judicial
declaration regarding its rights and obligations as to Defendant
Alyce Pennington under a workers' compensation insurance policy
issued by New Hampshire Insurance on May 18, 2014, to Noranda
Aluminum Holding Corporation.  The Policy had an effective date
of May 18, 2014 to May 18, 2015. Noranda, a non-party at this
time, owned and operated an aluminum smelter in Marston, Missouri
during all times relevant to this action.

Defendant Pennington is a citizen and resident of the State of
Arizona, and is the surviving widow and dependent of Richard
Trapp, deceased.

On January 8, 2016, Mr. Trapp filed a claim with the Missouri
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of
Workers' Compensation, in which he alleged exposure to asbestos
during his employment at Noranda, which caused him to develop
mesothelioma. He indicated that the "date of accident or
occupational disease" was May 12, 2015. Mr. Trapp alleged that
his last potential exposure to asbestos at Noranda's aluminum
smelter in Marston occurred sometime in 1973. On January 14,
2016, Mr. Trapp passed away. Thereafter, Defendant Alyce
Pennington became the claimant in the workers' compensation
action.

Plaintiff New Hampshire Insurance Company filed this action for
declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau
County, Missouri. Defendant Pennington removed the cause to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant
to the Court's diversity jurisdiction.

Defendant Pennington has asserted that the Policy provides
workers' compensation insurance coverage for her claim arising
from the illness and death of Mr. Trapp. New Hampshire Insurance
argues that the Policy does not provide coverage because Trapp's
last alleged exposure to asbestos on the insured premises
operated by Noranda did not occur within the policy period, as
required by the Policy. New Hampshire seeks a judicial
declaration by this Court that it has no legal obligation to
provide workers' compensation benefits to Alyce Pennington
arising from the alleged injury, illness, or death of Richard
Trapp.

Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure
to join a party pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(7), and 19. Plaintiff opposes
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and has filed a Motion for Leave to
File a First Amended Complaint for the purpose of adding Noranda
as a party defendant.

Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri explains that in order to subject a
defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction, due process
requires that there must be "an affiliation between the forum and
the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore
subject to the State's regulation."

Defendant argues that the Court does not have specific
jurisdiction over her because her only connection to the State of
Missouri is through a workers' compensation claim filed on behalf
of her deceased husband. She claims that the present suit does
not arise out of or relate to the workers' compensation claim.
Instead, Defendant argues that the instant declaratory judgment
action arises out of and relates to the interpretation of a
contract between Plaintiff and Noranda. Defendant further
contends that subjecting her to the jurisdiction of this Court
would violate the Due Process Clause.

However, based on its review of the evidence submitted by the
parties, the Court concludes that Defendant Pennington has
sufficient contacts with Missouri to comport with the
requirements of Due Process. In consideration of the nature and
quality of the contacts with Missouri and the relationship of the
cause of action to the contacts, the first three factors of the
Eighth Circuit's five-factor test weigh heavily in favor of
Plaintiff. Although Defendant was not a party to the insurance
contract at issue in the instant action, it is only because of
Defendant's pursuit of a workers' compensation claim in Missouri
that it is necessary to interpret that contract. In that action,
Defendant claims that the Policy provides coverage. Plaintiff's
action for declaratory judgment, therefore, relates to
Defendant's contacts with Missouri.

Defendant chose to maintain an action in Missouri on behalf of
her deceased husband based on an alleged work injury that
occurred in Missouri. In doing so, Defendant purposefully availed
herself of the benefits and protections of Missouri law.
Defendant should not, therefore, be surprised to be haled into
this Court. Although Plaintiff argues that Missouri has an
interest in disputes over its residents' insurance policies, the
named insured here -- Noranda -- is not a party to the action at
this time.

The Court notes that Plaintiff properly points out that Missouri
is the locus of the alleged injury for which Defendant claims
Plaintiff must provide coverage under the Policy. As to the
parties' convenience, the related workers' compensation claim is
currently being litigated in Missouri. Thus, this factor weighs
slightly in favor of Plaintiff. As such, the Court concludes that
the issues raised by this action would be better addressed in the
workers' compensation action pending in state court.

The case is New Hampshire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Alyce
Pennington, alleged dependent of Richard Trapp, deceased,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17CV00142 ACL., (E.D. Mo.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 18,
2018, is available at https://is.gd/1V39d4 from Leagle.com.

New Hampshire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by:

             Ross D. McFerron, Esq.
             Jason G. Crowell, Esq.
             OSBURN AND HINE, L.L.C.
             3071 Lexington Ave.
             Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701
             Phone: (573) 651-9000
             Email: rmcferron@ohymlaw.com
                    jcrowell@ohymlaw.com

Alyce Pennington, Defendant, represented by:

             Stephanie L. Gold, Esq.
             Sophie A. Zavaglia, Esq.
             SWMW LAW, LLC
             701 Market Street, Suite 1000
             St. Louis, MO 63101
             Phone: 314.480.5180
             Toll Free: 877.205.4250
             Email: stephanie@swmwlaw.com
                    sophie@swmwlaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spoliation Sanctions vs. J-M Mfg Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court for New York
County affirmed an order granting Plaintiff's motion for
spoliation sanctions against defendant J-M Manufacturing Company,
Inc.

In or around the 1990's, J-M Manufacturing lost and destroyed
numerous banker's boxes containing the records of the
manufacture, sale, and marketing of pipe which contained
asbestos, a line of business it purchased from Johns-Manville in
the 1980s. Although the first claim by an end user for personal
injuries was not made with regard to that pipe until 2000,
Plaintiff adduced evidence that J-M Manufacturing was on notice
that the records might be needed for future litigation, and thus
J-M Manufacturing's behavior constituted spoliation. J-M
Manufacturing was well aware of the long history of personal
injury claims arising from other Johns-Manville asbestos-
containing products, and the Worker's Compensation claims filed
by individuals who worked in the manufacture of the pipes at
issue.

The Court determines that J-M Manufacturing contemplated the
possibility of litigation, having entered into a litigation
cooperation agreement with Johns-Mansville at the time it
purchased the pipe business, and internal memos from the 1980's
show that executives and lawyers at J-M Manufacturing discussed
the risk-benefit of continuing the product line, as well as the
possibility that its insurance carriers would withdraw liability
coverage for the product.

Accordingly, the motion court did not abuse its broad discretion
in directing that the jury be charged with an adverse inference
at the time of trial.

The case is In Re New York City Asbestos Litigation. Theresa
Warren, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amchem Products, Inc., et
al., Defendants, J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant-
Appellant, 5493N, 40000/88, 190281/14, (N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order, dated January 18,
2018, is available at https://is.gd/Z6kwLO from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellant:

             Madina Axelrod, Esq.
             Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.
             850 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
             New York, NY 10022
             Telephone: 212.651.7500
             Facsimile: 212.651.7499
             Email: maxelrod@smsm.com

Counsel for Respondent:

             Gennaro Savastano, Esq.
             Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
             700 Broadway
             New York, NY 10003
             Phone: (212) 558-5500
             Fax: (212) 344-5461
             Email: info@weitzlux.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court May Junk Varney Couple Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Donald Varney, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Air &
Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-
1902JLR, (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington requires Plaintiffs
Donald Varney and Maria Varney to file a response that satisfies
the court that it has subject matter jurisdiction within 14 days
from the Court's Order dated, January 16, 2018, otherwise, the
court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

Plaintiffs assert claims against four defendants who are limited
liability companies, including Defendants ITT, LLC, McNally
Industires, LLC, Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, and Warren
Pumps, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 because the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between citizens of different states.

The Court finds that it does not establish the Court's subject
matter jurisdiction over this action since it does not contain
any allegations regarding the identity of these Defendants'
members or the citizenship of those members. The Court explains
that a court assessing diversity jurisdiction in a proceeding
involving a limited liability company must consider the
citizenship of all members of the limited liability company.

Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiffs to show cause why
this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated January 16, 2018, is
available at https://is.gd/WzbZ5O from Leagle.com.

Donald Varney & Maria Varney, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by:

             Alexandra B. Caggiano, Esq.
             Benjamin Robert Couture, Esq.
             Brian Weinstein, Esq.
             Weinstein Couture PLLC
             601 Union Street, Suite 2420
             Seattle, Washington 98101
             Toll Free: 800-406-1690
             Fax: 206-237-8650

Alfa Laval Inc, BW/IP Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Flowserve US Inc. & Superior Lidgerwood Mundy Corporation,
successor-in-interest to M.T. Davidson, Defendants, represented
by:

             Christine E. Dinsdale, Esq.
             SOHA & LANG PS
             Puget Sound Plaza
             1325 4th Avenue, Suite 2000
             Seattle, WA 98101
             Tel: (206) 624-1800
             Fax: (206) 624-3585
             Email: dinsdale@sohalang.com

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by:

             Claude Bosworth, Esq.
             Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC
             900 Washington Street, Suite 1020
             Vancouver, WA 98660
             Phone: (360) 448-4284
             Fax (503) 229-0630
             Email: cbosworth@rizzopc.com

General Electric Company & The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendants,
represented by:

             Christopher S. Marks, Esq.
             Tanenbaum Keale LLP
             601 Union Street
             Two Union Square
             Suite 4253
             Seattle, WA 98101
             Email: cmarks@tktrial.com

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 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, Defendant, represented by:

             Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq.
             James Edward Horne, Esq.
             Gordon Thomas Honeywell
             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

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

             Ryan W. Vollans, Esq.
             Nicole R. MacKenzie, Esq.
             WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS
             Two Union Square
             601 Union Street, Suite 4100
             Seattle, WA 98101
             Phone: 206-628-2781
             Fax: (206) 628-6611
             Email: rvollans@williamskastner.com
                    nmackenzie@williamskastner.com

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by:

             John Michael Mattingly, Esq.
             RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC
             1300 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 330
             Portland, OR 97201
             Phone: (503) 229-1819
             Email: mmattingly@rizzopc.com

Taco Inc, Defendant, represented by:

             Jeanne F. Loftis, Esq.
             BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
             888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 300
             Portland, OR 97204-2017
             Direct Dial: 503.499.4601
             Fax: 503.295.0915
             Email: jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by:

             Allen Eraut, Esq.
             RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC
             1300 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 330
             Portland, OR 97201
             Phone: (503) 229-1819
             Email: aeraut@rizzopc.com

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, individually and as successor in
interest to Atwood & Morrill Co Inc., Defendant, represented by:

             Dana C. Kopij, Esq.
             WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS
             Two Union Square
             601 Union Street, Suite 4100
             Seattle, WA 98101
             Phone: 206-628-6777
             Fax: (206) 628-6611
             Email: dkopij@williamskastner.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Has 8th Amendment Claim for Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
David Schilling is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San
Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"). In his complaint, Plaintiff names
the following Defendants at SQSP: California Prison Industry
Authority ("CALPIA") Plant Manager Gary Loredo; CALPIA
Supervisors Ron Glass, Luu Rogers, and Tomique McClure, as well
as "John Does 1 through 5."

Plaintiff claims that on May 2, 2015, while he was working in the
furniture factory, his supervisor, Defendant Glass, directed him
to clean certain areas of the facility. Plaintiff claims that
while he was cleaning he came into contact with "a large amount
of a white substance which every time it came into contact with a
broom would crumble into a cloud of fine powdery dust surrounding
[and] engulfing Plaintiff which [he] was forced to continuously
breath without benefit of any safety protection or respiratory
equipment." Plaintiff also claims that he "was informed that the
white substance was asbestos material."

As a result, Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered health
problems, including respiratory issues which could "possibly be
caused by exposure to friable asbestos." On April 12, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal for "personal injury"
relating to the aforementioned incident. On July 27, 2016, CALPIA
Administrator Paul Miller interviewed Plaintiff and "granted in
part" the 602 appeal, stating "there would be no retaliation
against the Plaintiff for raising his complaint concerning
asbestos in the facility." Plaintiff further claims that he
pursued this appeal to the highest level of appeal that was
available to him.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2016, Defendant Glass and
his "new work supervisor," Defendant McClure, met with him and
served him with "a CDCR Form 101 (work supervisor's report) which
reflected grades not representing [his] true work ethics and
history." Plaintiff adds that the report also "recommended a
demotion of Plaintiff without just cause."

Moreover, on September 20, 2016, Plaintiff claims that Defendant
McClure directed Sergeant Lewis to "author a memorandum
requesting Plaintiff be removed from his assigned job (of
seventeen months) using [a] 'Limited Duty' medical chrono even
though the limitations listed did not correspond correctly with
any real medical limitations preventing the Plaintiff from
working at the job he was assigned." Plaintiff states that the
chrono was "not implemented based on [his] physician's actual
diagnosis and work limitation request." Plaintiff claims that the
"removal of Plaintiff from his assigned job... was as a direct
response by defendants to [his] reasonable complaints concerning
asbestos contamination... [and that] this removal was in direct
contradiction to defendant's assertions that there would be no
retaliation against Plaintiff for filing those complaints."

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of United States District Court for
the Northern District of California finds that Plaintiff has
stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to the serious risk of harm from exposing him to
asbestos against Defendant Glass and Defendant Loredo (the
"acting plant manager"), and Defendant Rogers ("CALPIA Facility
Safety Coordinator"), who failed to take reasonable steps to
protect Plaintiff. The Court determines that Plaintiff also
states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Glass
and McClure.

The case is David Schilling, Plaintiff, v. Gary Loredo, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04054-YGR (PR), (C.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of Memorandum and Order is available ate
https://is.gd/3urqNk from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sep. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation remains a defendant against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
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.

IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number
of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense
and insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the
Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the
Company believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need
to investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied
to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to
asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available
for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted
primary and excess insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies
have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that
the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company
expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future.
Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately
1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of
some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period
will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that
the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the
suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy
limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the
Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not
material to the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/91vIEs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sep.30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
personal injury lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to
asbestos in certain product components, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain
components of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a
few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the
claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are
indemnified for most of the costs.  However, we have agreed to
defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products
manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to
their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007.

"We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities
associated with asbestos cases against our former Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with our products or products of divested businesses
for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on
the part of many claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008
with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility
for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.
In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost
share agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.
We believe that this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to
provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos
liabilities relating to the divested measurement and flow control
business.  We initiated litigation against several insurers to
pursue coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's
policy limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.  In September 2016, we entered into settlement
agreements with certain insurance company defendants.  In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Lamorak Insurance Company bought
out its remaining liability and has been released from further
insurance obligations relating to the measurement and flow
control business.  Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and
certain London Market Insurance Companies entered into a cost
share agreement to pay a portion of future defense and indemnity
costs for measurement and flow control asbestos claims.  We
believe this arrangement will continue to provide partial
coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life
of asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins
avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have
agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent
liabilities related to the respective businesses, including
environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and
Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we
agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages
related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos
matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for
which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received
for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/a5rBfV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Still Defends 725 PI Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company continues to face around 725 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of September 30, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation.  Typically, these suits also name
many other corporate defendants.  The costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been
significant.  As of September 30, 2017, there were approximately
725 lawsuits.  We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits,
with respect to asbestos claims.  We have valid defenses to these
asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to
defend them vigorously.  Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant
costs resolving these cases.  We do not expect the resolution of
pending litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity.  In
any given period or periods, however, it is possible such
proceedings or matters could have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had 54,000 Open Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2017 that there were 54,000 open claims
filed against the Company at the end of the fiscal year.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused
by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily
from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection
with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of HR&A.

"During the most recent update completed during 2017, it was
determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims
should be increased by US$36 million.  Total reserves for
asbestos claims were US$419 million at September 30, 2017
compared to US$415 million at September 30, 2016.

"Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide substantially all of the
coverage that will be accessed.

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, all of which are solvent.

"At September 30, 2017, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$155 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims).  Receivables from insurers amounted to US$151
million at September 30, 2016.  During 2017, the annual update of
the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and
its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was
completed.  This model update resulted in a US$15 million
increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

"Ashland entered into settlement agreements totaling US$5 million
and US$4 million with certain insurers during 2017 and 2016,
respectively, which resulted in a reduction of the Ashland
insurance receivable within the Consolidated Balance Sheets by
the same amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Gb0Wsk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2017 that wholly-owned subsidiary
Hercules LLC had 12,000 open claims filed against it related to
asbestos matters at the end of fiscal year.

The Company states, "To assist in developing and annually
updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims
and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A).  The methodology
used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on
recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates,
disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation
defense.  The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are
separately compared to the results of previously conducted third
party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases.  Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos.  Using that
information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future
claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may
be incurred in resolving those claims.  Changes in asbestos-
related liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax
basis within the discontinued operations caption in the
Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income.

"Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of HR&A.  As a result of the most recent annual
update of this estimate, completed during 2017, it was determined
that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be
increased by US$16 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims
were US$323 million at September 30, 2017 compared to US$321
million at September 30, 2016.

"For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place
agreements with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any
increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by
probable insurance recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value
of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos
reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates
surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage,
including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers
remain solvent.  The estimated receivable consists exclusively of
solvent domestic insurers.

"As a result of the January 2015 asbestos insurance settlement
previously described, Hercules resolved all disputes with Chartis
(AIG) member companies under their existing coverage-in-place
agreement for past, present and future Hercules asbestos claims.
As a result, during 2015, a US$22 million reduction in the
insurance receivable balance within the Consolidated Balance
Sheets was recorded.

"As of September 30, 2017 and 2016, the receivables from insurers
amounted to US$68 million and US$63 million, respectively.
During 2017, the annual update of the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers was completed.  This model update
resulted in a US$5 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Gb0Wsk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $573MM Liability at Sept30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
net liability to be US$573 million as of September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named
as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos containing materials.  These cases have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with
asbestos containing components.

"As of September 30, 2017, the Company's estimated asbestos
related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the
Company's consolidated statements of financial position was
US$181 million.  The net liability within the consolidated
statements of financial position was comprised of a liability for
pending and future claims and related defense costs of US$573
million, of which US$48 million was recorded in other current
liabilities and US$525 million was recorded in other noncurrent
liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the
consolidated statements of financial position of US$392 million,
of which US$53 million was recorded in other current assets, and
US$339 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets
included US$22 million of cash and US$269 million of investments,
which have all been designated as restricted.  In connection with
the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the
Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are
probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at September 30,
2017 was US$101 million.

"The Company believes that the asbestos related liabilities and
insurance related receivables recorded as of September 30, 2017
are appropriate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RU3Itv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Faces 37,000 AO Claimants at Sept30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 37,000 claimants as of September 30,
2017, in pending cases asserting claims against Cabot
Corporation's American Optical Corporation in connection with
respiratory products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.
In connection with its acquisition of the business, the
subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion
of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with
amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO
respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot
subsidiary.

"In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary
the benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior
to the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO
respiratory products used prior to May 1982.

"Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal
worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of
respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed
and/or labeled.  Neither Cabot, nor its past or present
subsidiaries, at any time manufactured asbestos or asbestos-
containing products.  At no time did this respiratory product
line represent a significant portion of the respirator market.

"The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation
("Aearo") in July 1995.  Cabot agreed to have the subsidiary
retain certain liabilities associated with exposure to asbestos
and silica while using respirators prior to the 1995 transaction
so long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee
of US$400,000.  Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any
time, in which case it will assume the responsibility for and
indemnify Cabot against those liabilities which Cabot's
subsidiary had agreed to retain.  We anticipate that we will
continue to receive payment of the US$400,000 fee from Aearo and
thereby retain these liabilities for the foreseeable future.  We
have no liability in connection with any products manufactured by
Aearo after 1995.

"In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other parties are responsible
for significant portions of the costs of respirator liabilities,
leaving Cabot's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in
only some of the pending cases.  These parties include Aearo, AO,
AO's insurers, another former owner and its insurers, and a
third-party manufacturer of respirators formerly sold under the
AO brand and its insurers (collectively, with Cabot's subsidiary,
the "Payor Group").

"As of September 30, 2017 and 2016, there were approximately
37,000 and 38,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases
asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products.  Cabot has contributed to the Payor Group's defense and
settlement costs with respect to a percentage of pending claims
depending on several factors, including the period of alleged
product use.  In order to quantify our estimated share of
liability for pending and future respirator liability claims, we
have engaged, through counsel, the assistance of Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading consulting firm
in the field of tort liability valuation.  The methodology used
by HR&A addresses the complexities surrounding our potential
liability by making assumptions about future claimants with
respect to periods of asbestos, silica and coal mine dust
exposure and respirator use.  Using those and other assumptions,
HR&A estimates the number of future asbestos, silica and coal
mine dust claims that will be filed and the related costs that
would be incurred in resolving both currently pending and future
claims.  On this basis, HR&A then estimates the value of the
share of these liabilities that reflect our period of direct
manufacture and our contractual obligations.  Based on the HR&A
estimates, as of September 30, 2017, we had US$18 million
reserved for our estimated share of liability for pending and
future respirator claims.  We made payments related to our
respirator liability of US$3 million in both fiscal 2017 and
fiscal 2016 and US$2 million in fiscal 2015."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/0jED6Y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Sept.30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be a defendant in
cases related to the use of vermiculite in certain of its
products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim
resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on our historic use of vermiculite in certain of
our products.  In many of these cases, the complaints are not
specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with us or our products.
The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek
unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential
and punitive) from multiple defendants.  We believe that the
claims against us are without merit and are vigorously defending
against them.  It is not currently possible to reasonably
estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the cases and,
accordingly, no accruals have been recorded in our consolidated
financial statements.  We are reviewing agreements and policies
that may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these
claims and are pursuing coverage under some of these agreements
and policies, although there can be no assurance of the results
of these efforts.  There can be no assurance that these cases,
whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of
significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/f26w06


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 42 PI Lawsuits at Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against 42
pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of October
31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising
from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building
products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss,
such as building fires.  As a distributor of building materials,
we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims
in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in
the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have
resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or
violated environmental, health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the
future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects
in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product,
negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In
particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products they distributed prior to 1979.

"Since 2002 and as of October 31, 2017, approximately 960
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them.  Of these, 911 have been
dismissed without any payment by us, 42 are pending and only 7
have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted
our financial condition or operating results."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, John Deere)
still face asbestos-related liability, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2017.

The Company states, "John Deere is subject to various unresolved
legal actions which arise in the normal course of its business,
the most prevalent of which relate to product liability
(including asbestos-related liability), retail credit,
employment, patent, and trademark matters.  John Deere believes
the reasonably possible range of losses for unresolved legal
actions would not have a material effect on its financial
statements.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/T6x7N3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnham Mansion Has Asbestos Materials
-------------------------------------------------------
Debra Pressey of The News-Gazette reported that it's still an
eye-catcher from the street, this 134-year-old white mansion with
a prominent name in Champaign's history.

Inside, the Burnham house is full of contrasts -- part old
charmer, part just plain old and showing it.

Many of the period details, such as multiple ornate fireplaces,
wooden wainscoting, built-ins and a curving main staircase, are
still there to behold.

But they vie for attention in the midst of the 1940s carving up
of the space into a dozen apartments, complete with tiny, time-
worn kitchens and bathrooms and window air conditioners.

On the not-so-charming side, there's asbestos in the construction
materials used in several areas of the house. There are areas of
damaged flooring. Moisture spots are visible in an upper-story
ceiling. So is a post on the second floor that's helping shore up
the floor above.

There was also a pervasive musty smell recently, perhaps because
pipes burst in the cold and left puddles of water in some of the
apartments. In the cavernous basement, there was still more water
-- plus a steady drip-drip-drip sound.

Champaign school district spokeswoman Emily Schmit said an
asbestos abatement will need to be done in the house, and there's
asbestos in flooring, piping, flue and duct insulation, windows
and glazing, boiler gaskets and insulation.

The gas and water service to the house was turned off months ago,
after the school district bought the property to make way for a
new parking lot for Central High School and apartment residents
moved out.

The electricity was disconnected for safety's sake on Jan. 8
after the pipes burst, Schmit said.

"At some point, we hope to get the power back on, when we get it
dried out," she said.

Champaign School Board President Chris Kloeppel said the Burnham
mansion may have been an exciting place to live -- at one time.

But estimates to bring this house up to current building codes
and make it a safe and usable place for public use run in the
several-million-dollar range -- money the school district doesn't
have, he said.

"Anybody would be hard-pressed, I think, to say this was a well-
maintained home," he said.

Creative thinking' time

A local citizens group contends the Burnham house is actually in
good condition.

It's calling for a moratorium on the district's demolition plans
and an extension of time for a public review of the high school
expansion plans.

This group has also been collecting signatures by the thousands
on an online petition it plans to present to the school board.

In about a week, more than 9,700 people from across the country
have signed the petition, and the group quickly revised its
original goal of reaching 7,500 signatures to 10,000.

This group has also recently restated its purpose on its Facebook
page -- to save not just the Burnham house at 603 West Church
Street, but also two other houses acquired by the school district
to make way for the high school's larger campus -- the Bailey
house at 606 West Church and the Phillipe mansion (McKinley YMCA)
at 500 West Church.

This is round two. The local Preservation and Conservation
Association has already mounted a campaign to get the houses
landmarked, and the city council turned that request down.

PACA hasn't been involved in the new petition drive, according to
its executive director, Thomas Garza.

"The only change -- that I am aware of -- is that more people are
becoming aware of the district's plans to demolish the (Burnham)
mansion and are starting to become active in its defense, so
there is a bit of a stir lately," Garza said. "But how effective
this 11-hour activity will be remains to be seen."

Rebecca Polk, who has been posting updates for the Facebook group
behind the petition, said this is a collaborative effort arising
from people who care about the Burnham house, downtown Champaign
and the community.

She cares a lot about the Burnham house herself. She once lived
across the street from it for a decade.

I am glad that Central is being expanded and renovated in its
central location," she said. "I feel strongly that with some
creative thinking, we can easily find feasible ways that Central
and the Burnham can coexist."

Hometown 'treasures'

Many petition signers have close ties to Champaign-Urbana, care
about history and admire the work of the Burnham house's
designer, Daniel Burnham, Polk said.

Built in 1884, the Burnham mansion is one of only 10 Daniel
Burnham residential buildings in the world, she said, "and we are
so fortunate to have one here."

Group member Carol Stanek calls herself a latecomer to the save-
the-Burnham-house effort, and her reaction to learning about the
school district's demolition plans was: "You've got to be kidding
me," she said. "These are treasures of my hometown."

Stanek said plans are to keep up a fight to save the houses as
long as they're standing, and that may take finding buyers for
them.

"I know it's going to take money," she said about the Burnham
house. "That's what people do. They put in money. They restore,
and I will do my very best to find somebody."

Kloeppel said he and fellow school board members are well aware
of the new petition drive.

The board already considered the pros and cons of tearing down
the Burnham house, he said. The district's plans weren't kept
secret when the high school expansion project was presented to
the community and the voters have spoken.

Walking through the Burnham house from top to bottom, school
board Vice President Amy Armstrong said what she sees is expense.

"What I see is millions of dollars of work," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc Powder Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------
MyCentralJersey.com reported that nearly a year and a half ago,
Stephen Lanzo III, 46, of Verona, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lung linings, according to
court papers.

Now, he and his wife Kendra are plaintiffs in the first asbestos-
related talcum powder trial to be heard before Judge Ana Viscomi
in Middlesex County Superior Court. Opening statements in Stephen
Lanzo III and Kendra Lanzo v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., et al.,
are scheduled for Jan. 22.

As part of a multicounty litigation process similar to
multidistrict litigation, the trial represents the first in the
state involving Johnson & Johnson's talc products, and the second
talc/mesothelioma trial in which the New Brunswick-based company
and its talc suppliers are named as defendants.

Since his birth, Lanzo was "frequently exposed to asbestos-
containing talc powder products," marketed and sold by J&J,
according to a civil action complaint.

J&J's products "generated dust and exposed him to respirable
asbestos fibers," read the complaint, noting that the products,
which are made, "sold and supplied by the defendants and their
predecessors in interest, proximately caused (Lanzo's)
mesothelioma."

Moreover, Lanzo "continues to suffer from other various injuries
and attendant complications," continued the complaint, while
imminent "exposures" to the company's products were also blamed.

Lanzo, who "last claimed asbestos exposure" around 2003, has a
history of "occasionally" smoking cigars "up to approximately
2002," according to court papers. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in July 2016.

Though Kendra Lanzo does not have cancer, as "the wife of (the)
Plaintiff," she "was wrongfully deprived of her husband's
society, services and consortium," reads the complaint's sixth
count, citing "actions of the defendants" as cause.

The plaintiffs "wantonly and intentionally conspired, and acted
in concert, to withhold information from Stephen Lanzo, and the
general public concerning the known hazards associated with the
use of and exposure to talc, including asbestos-containing talc,"
continued the complaint.

The defendants also failed to provide information "relating to
the fact that asbestos fiber inhalation could be fatal,"
according to the complaint. And, "conspired . . . to disseminate
false product safety information," and info on the "hazards and
dangers."

The company prevailed in the "first mesothelioma trial, when a
Los Angeles Superior Court jury in November found that J&J and
co-defendant Imerys Talc America were not responsible for the
mesothelioma of Tina Herford, 61," who used J&J's talc products
for three and a half decades, writes Myron Levin, in a
FairWarning report. (The nonprofit news organization reviewed
thousands of pages of documents.)

J&J "settled a second case and faces at least several dozen more
lawsuits," continues the report, adding that, "similar lawsuits
are targeting other companies, including Colgate-Palmolive,"
which made Cashmere Bouquet powder.

"They knew it had asbestos in it. . . . They were reckless with
peoples' lives," Herford's lawyer, Chris Panatier, reportedly
told the jury.

J&J's lawyers and witnesses argued against all findings of
asbestos contamination, according to the report, which cited "lab
contamination and misclassification of asbestos fibers" presented
by J&J's attorneys, as blemishing the positive test results.

The report added: "Defense lawyers made a plausible case for a
different cause of Herford's mesothelioma: the aggressive
radiation treatments she received for breast cancer in 1998."
Following its win in the Herford case, the company said Johnson's
Baby Powder has been around since 1894 and does not contain
asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer, according to a
statement.

"Since the 1970s, talc used in consumer products has been
required to be asbestos-free, so JOHNSON'S talc products do not
contain asbestos, a substance classified as cancer-causing," J&J
said in a statement underscoring "the safety profile of cosmetic
talc."

"JOHNSON'S Baby Powder products contain only U.S. Pharmacopeia
(USP) grade talc," noted the company, citing rigorous "compliance
standards."

"The company's sources for talc are routinely evaluated using a
sophisticated battery of tests . . . to ensure compliance," added
J&J.

Overall, J&J has stated several facts, for instance it said: "The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which
identifies potential risk factors for many diseases, has not
identified talc as a risk factor for ovarian cancer."

Courtroom View Network (CVN) will webcast the entire trial. The
trial is expected to run through the end of February.

"(CVN) has webcast and archived almost every state court trial
involving J&J's talc products since the first trial in St. Louis,
Missouri in 2016," said David Siegel, a CVN editor.

"Many attorneys and other members of the public who couldn't
otherwise watch a lengthy trial like this in person will have the
option of keeping up remotely via CVN," added Siegel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Hazard Not Properly Mitigated
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rogers of Daily Times Leader reported that it once was the
city's lifeblood. Now the random piles that remain attract
nothing more than birds, stray cats and dogs, and a fox. To the
wild imagination, they look like head's rising from the concrete,
stringy hair shooting in every direction, bent and frayed. It
could pass for a bombed-out neighborhood or war zone.

And soon, West Point leaders know they will have to do something
about it.

More than seven years ago, Fred Kohart and his Ohio-based salvage
company bought the 70-acre Bryan Foods/Sara Lee site and the
550,000 square feet of buildings scattered across the site
between Church Hill and Tibbee roads.

He planned to sell off the buildings that had some remaining use
and scrap as much as 350,000 square feet for the metal.

The plan went along well until the state Department of
Environmental Quality cracked down in 2013 because Kohart had not
properly mitigated the hazardous asbestos in the old buildings.
He reached an agreement with the state, paid a $7,500 fine and
took care of much of the asbestos.

But it's been two years since his crews have done anything. Some
business owners and investors have bought four or five of the
buildings, The Mission, a faith-based drug and alcohol recovery
program and social service group, obtained two buildings and more
than seven acres.

But the city is left with more than 30 acres of crumbling
structures, piles of debris, and buildings with gaping holes.

"He's gotten a clean bill of health on the asbestos from the
state Department of Environmental Quality and sold some of the
buildings, but he's done, he's gone," West Point City
Administrator Randy Jones said of Kohart.

Sara Lee shuttered the plant in 2007, eliminating the final 1,200
jobs in a facility that once employed as many as 2,000 people,
providing jobs that touched almost every family in the region.

When he bought the property in September 2010, Kohart offered the
city not just on the site.

Now the city will have to find some partners to remove the
eyesore.

"We could try to pressure him to finish the clean up, but we
suspect he'd just say he has no money or we'd be in for a long
fight for nothing," Jones said.

"We know it's a problem. Sooner or later we are going to have to
put our heads together with everyone and try to figure out what
to do," he continued, referring to property owners and state
environmental groups.

One possibility is getting the non-hazardous materials arm of DEQ
to get involved to either force the clean up or provide funding
to have it done.

"We can't do it on our own. It's not going to be cheap. Hopefully
we can get some help from the state," Jones explained, noting
hauling away a small amount of debris to Brooksville cost
$100,000.

"It would be great if they could figure something out," said Mike
Cianci, one of the founders of The Mission.

About three of the Mission's 7.5 acres is scarred with piles of
debris and old concrete building footings and scrap metal.

"The only thing we can think of is to try to get all this cleaned
off some how and fill it in. If the city and the state can figure
something out, that would be good for everything," he said,
sweeping his arm toward the debris for emphasis.

"The bad thing is there aren't any easy answers. We're stuck
between a rock and a hard place," Jones concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disparities Among Lung Cancer Patients Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss of Surviving Mesothelioma reported that a new study
on treatment disparities among lung cancer patients reflects a
trend that has been documented among mesothelioma patients, as
well; patients who are black or economically disadvantaged are
less likely to get potentially life-saving treatments.

Like non-small cell lung cancer, pleural mesotheliomaaffects the
lungs. The standard of care is for patients to have a combination
of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. For malignant mesothelioma
patients as well as those with lung cancer, surgery may also be
recommended.

But a study conducted by researchers at Emory University in
Atlanta, Georgia finds that the standard treatments are often not
offered to elderly patients, especially if they are black and
live in a poor area.

Elderly Lung Cancer Patients May Miss Out

The study utilized data from the National Cancer Data Base and
focused on non-small lung cancer patients who were 80 years old
or older.

Researchers identified 12,641 patients with either stage IIIA or
IIIB lung cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013. To be included
in the analysis, their cancer treatment records and outcomes had
to be available for review.

The most disturbing news is that 62.7% of these elderly lung
cancer patients with Stage III lung cancer received no cancer-
directed care at all. Being black and living in an area of lower
educational levels were both associated with not receiving care.

"Receipt of no treatment or definitive radiation alone compared
with chemoradiation was associated with worse overall survival,"
reports lead author Richard J. Cassidy, MD, in the journal
Cancer.
As has been found in a number of mesothelioma studies, patients
who sought care at larger academic centers were more likely to
get the appropriate cancer treatment.

Mesothelioma Treatment Not Always Fair

Unfortunately, the treatment of patients with malignant pleural
mesothelioma also tends to leave some patients out.

A report conducted by cancer researchers in New York and released
in 2015 found that, even though mesothelioma incidence is much
lower among African Americans, black patients who do get the
asbestos cancer tend to have worse survival rates.

Utilizing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) database, researchers identified 13,046 white
malignant mesothelioma patients and 688 black mesothelioma
patients. They found that patients who were black were less
likely to undergo cancer-directed surgery than white patients.

Neither study addresses the reason for the disparity, but both
contain a clear message for people with mesothelioma or lung
cancer, regardless of race: Educate yourself about the standard
of care for your disease and, if possible, seek treatment at a
larger, academic medical center.

Malignant mesothelioma affects an estimated 2,500 people in the
US each year. Most were inadvertently exposed to asbestos on the
job decades earlier, often because of inadequate protective gear
or training.

Sources:

Cassidy, RJ, et al, "Health care disparities among octogenarians
and nonagenarians with stage III lung cancer", January 8, 2018,
Cancer, Epub ahead of print

Taioli, E, et al, "Frequency of Surgery in Black Patients with
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma", April 30, 2015, Disease Markers,
Epub ahead of print


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Buys Back $670MM Worth of Asbestos Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times reported that the territory government has now
bought back more than $670 million worth of former Mr Fluffy
asbestos homes across the city, at an average of $716,139 a
block.

Another 429 blocks are yet to be sold to new buyers.

The latest figures on the work of the $1 billion asbestos
response taskforce show it bought 948 properties for $678.9
million to December 31 last year, with a further $84.4 million
spent demolishing 916 homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ordinance Criminalizes Asbestos Depositing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Inter-Mountain reported that the Buckhannon City Council
unanimously voted to approve an ordinance that will criminalize
the depositing or attempted depositing of asbestos at any
facility owned or operated by the Waste Collection Board.

City attorney Tom O'Neill explained the ordinance surfaced after
two incidents occurred at the transfer station, in which asbestos
was dumped or attempted to be dumped. One of those cases cost the
city a few thousand dollars in damages. Once asbestos is dumped
in the bin, the whole bin is considered contaminated, noted
O'Neill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pays Maximum Fine in Exposure Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
WSAW reported that the authorities say the corporate owner of a
former Wisconsin factory accused of ordering workers to remove
insulation that contained asbestos has paid the maximum fine
under terms of a plea agreement.

The incident happened six years ago at Grede foundry in Berlin.
Federal prosecutors say managers failed to provide the employees
with adequate safety equipment and didn't tell the workers they
were dealing with asbestos while removing material from the roof
of an inactive industrial oven.

In addition to the fine, the company agreed to provide 11 workers
with more than $340,000 to provide for future medical monitoring
for mesothelioma and similar lung conditions.

The foundry shut down in 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Crocker Elem. School Not Uncommon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Dobbins of Sentinel & Enterprises reported that if the
damage at Crocker Elementary School was just a burst steam pipe,
officials agree getting children back in the building would have
taken far fewer steps, as was the case in other district schools.

But the asbestos, which was disturbed in the wake of the burst
over winter vacation, adds another element to the recovery.

The material's presence in the building was not a surprise to
administrators, who say they are required by federal law to
periodically document the asbestos present in the 54-year-old
elementary and other district schools.

According to experts, Fitchburg is not alone.

"Essentially almost all of U.S. schools built between 1940 and
1970 contain asbestos, which was widely used as a fire-proofing
building material," said Brent Sears, quoting information from
the organization he represents, Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance.

A 2015 study by architectural firm Lamoureux Pagano & Associates
described the presence of asbestos in the floor tiles of Crocker
and Memorial Middle School. A document from the same year
submitted by the district to the MSBA also mentions asbestos.

More than a building material, the substance is a known
carcinogen which can cause mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer
that can develop decades after inhaling particles.

The thing that makes it a great building material, the fact that
it is very durable, is one of the reasons that it can eventually
lead to cancer, because it doesn't break down in the body," said
Sears.

However, asbestos is not always addressed in buildings, according
to Walter Pacheco, the managing editor of Asbestos.com, a site
that covers issues related to the material. When left undisturbed
it does not pose a threat, whereas the act of removing it can
cause particles to be released into the air, he said.
He described asbestos abatement as an often costly process that
involves using a vacuum with a specialized filter and dampening
the area to keep the particles from becoming airborne. Sometimes
asbestos is removed, other times its encased, often in a concrete
shell.

Even if left undisturbed, Pacheco said asbestos can become a
problem in an aging building.

"Asbestos itself, if it's just sitting there, it's not going to
hurt anybody. It just sits there," he said. "The problem with
asbestos, especially in older schools, is once all that other
stuff starts to fail, especially the pipes, the crumbling walls,
cracks in the walls, it starts damaging products that contain
asbestos."

Sometimes this damage can occurs without the knowledge of the
people using the room, he said.

While it's common for schools and other buildings to leave
contained asbestos unabated, Lunenburg Public Schools has taken a
different approach. From 2015-20, the district expects to spend
$500,000 abating asbestos at Turkey Hill Elementary School.

However, even with these efforts, Lunenburg Building Director and
Supervisor John Londa said the pervasive material will not be
completely eradicated, because "you don't ever really get rid of
all the asbestos until you get rid of the building."

The presence of asbestos in many buildings in Massachusetts has
also raised alarms at state Attorney General Maura Healey's
office. In March of last year, her office started the Healthy
Buildings, Healthy Air initiative to better document asbestos in
public schools based off a 2015 report from U.S. Sen. Edward
Markey's office that showed the presence of asbestos in schools
still remains largely unknown.

"We know too little about current asbestos hazards in our
schools, workplaces and other buildings, and what we do know
indicates we have a widespread problem in addressing this toxic
threat," said Markey in a release from the Attorney General's
office.

"We cannot let lack of awareness put families, workers, students
and teachers at risk of asbestos exposure. We need to arm
consumers with information about where asbestos can be found so
they can avoid exposure, and create a more systemic and dedicated
commitment to removing it from our neighborhoods, especially
local schools."

To address the recent damage at Crocker, Fitchburg administrators
have hired Joe Knapik, a certified industrial hygienist at ATC
Group Services, who will represent the district and help develop
a response to the incident.

The company is also collaborating with the district regarding
leaks at Longsjo Middle School. Knapik praised the maintenance
performed by the district and said Fitchburg Public Schools has
followed the proper procedure regarding asbestos.

"They've been managing the asbestos risk according to code," he
said. "This happened to be an accident that occurred. Sometimes
those happen. The kids weren't at risk because this occurred when
the school wasn't in session."

He also described the specifics of the Crocker incident and
response.

"The school has suffered what's called a fiber release episode
relating to the disturbance of some floor tiles and ceiling
tiles," he said.

The asbestos containing floor tiles and adhesive were damaged
from the steam. Ceiling tiles, also containing asbestos, in the
first and second floors experienced water damage, he said.

"A contracting firm, a cleanup company, did some work and
procedures weren't followed," said Knapik who declined to name
the company. "That work occcured before we got involved and we're
now left with the aftermath."

City Solicitor Vincent Pusateri said the city was not involved in
any litigation regarding this matter.

While the "fiber release" occurred in only one wing of the
school, the repair process also includes inspecting the condition
of the rest of the school, he said. Knapik said addressing the
issue requires coordinating with school and state agencies to
perform air tests and abatement.

School officials say they are unsure how long Crocker will be
closed, though early estimates placed the repairs at four weeks.
In the meantime, students are studying at the former St.
Anthony's School on Salem Street and the former T.C. Passios
Elementary School in Lunenburg.

Pusateri said the city's insurance agency -- the Massachusetts
Interlocal Insurance Association -- is expected to pay for the
abatement process and, likely, secondary costs, such leases on
school buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Action to Ban Asbestos Use in Makeup Urged
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARE2 reported that for several years Care2 has been working to
ban the use of animal testing in the creation of cosmetics. Now
there's another reason to be scared about the contents of makeup
produced in the U.S.

Kristie Warner, a resident of Barrington, Rhode Island, purchased
a glittery makeup kit for her six-year-old daughter McKenzie from
Claire's Accessories, but she grew concerned about what might be
in those cosmetics. So she decided to send a sample to the
Scientific Analytical Institute in North Carolina.

She was devastated when she received the result indicating that
the cosmetics (created for kids) contained asbestos, well known
as a highly toxic mineral linked to cancer.

"I ended up sitting on the ground, just trying to wrap my head
around how something like that could end up in our home," Warner
told WJAR. "You just assume a children's product would be safe."

Deeply concerned that children's lives were being put in danger,
Warner purchased 17 different Claire's products from nine states
and sent them in for testing. The Institute reported that each
product tested positive for tremolite asbestos, which has been
linked to mesothelioma and other types of cancer.

How is this possible? It turns out that in spite of the many
known health risks of asbestos, the U.S. does not ban its use in
cosmetics.

When the Care2 team discovered this, they created a petition,
demanding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban
the use of asbestos in cosmetics. As of writing, over 55,000
Care2 activists have already signed the petition.

Thankfully, national retailer Claire's Accessories has recalled
nine makeup products after Warner sounded the alarm. But the
Care2 petition points out a more basic problem:

"While it is against the law to use any ingredient in a cosmetic
that makes the product harmful to consumers when used as
directed, asbestos is not specifically included in the list of
ingredients prohibited from use in cosmetics."

The picture is very different in other countries.

Over the past two decades the E.U. has restricted or banned
around 1,400 harmful chemicals and other ingredients from
personal care products, while in Canada the number is about 600.
In the U.S. just 30 potentially harmful ingredients have been
banned.

All minerals in the asbestos group have been known as dangerous
for some time, ever since it was revealed after a series of court
cases, that asbestos causes cancer and chronic inflammation and
lung scarring, as well as serious long term breathing issues.

So how does it end up in makeup?

The connection is through talc; It's one of the world's softest
minerals and is used widely in cosmetics because it makes
products feel softer and absorbs moisture well. But the problem
is that the mineral deposits containing talc are often interwoven
with asbestos fibers, so when talc is mined, it can be
contaminated with asbestos.

And guess what? In spite of numerous lawsuits, the talc industry
is not subject to any regulations.

It seems especially egregious that our children's lives should be
put in danger by unscrupulous manufacturers. Since the FDA under
the Trump administration is unlikely to initiate any changes
voluntarily, other than those that favor big corporations, it's
important that Katie Warner sought out the truth about the makeup
she was buying for her daughter.

Now this petition is important to follow up on Warner's actions
and persuade the FDA to take action.

If you agree, please sign our Care2 petition demanding that the
FDA recognize the dangerous effects of asbestos by banning its
use in cosmetic products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defunct Wis. Foundry Exposed Workers to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos.com reported that a Wisconsin court ordered the
corporate owner of a shuttered foundry to pay more than $500,000
in fines and medical expenses for exposing workers to toxic
asbestos.
Grede Holdings LLC, which was indicted last March, pleaded guilty
Jan. 11 in the U.S. District Court in Eastern Wisconsin to
violating a provision of the Clean Air Act.

As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Grede
acknowledged supervisors at its plant in Berlin, Wisconsin,
negligently ordered numerous employees in January 2012 to remove
asbestos-containing insulation material from the roof of an
inactive industrial oven.

"The company failed to provide the workers with adequate personal
protective equipment, or follow standard asbestos abatement
procedures, placing the workers in imminent danger of serious
bodily injury," according to a U.S. Department of Justice news
release.

The court ordered Grede to pay a maximum fine of $200,000 and
agreed to provide 11 affected workers with more than $340,000 for
"future medical monitoring for mesotheliomaand similar lung
conditions."

"It is well known that asbestos exposure is hazardous to human
health," Brad Ostendorf, assistant special agent in charge of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) criminal enforcement
program for Region 5, said in the release. "If materials
containing asbestos aren't handled safely -- and legally --
workers and the community can be placed at great risk. EPA and
its partner agencies are committed to protecting both the
environment and public health."

Struggling Factory Closed in 2015

Grede closed the Berlin factory in 2015, cutting 157 jobs. The
company cited tough economic times in the mining, construction
and agriculture markets as reasons for the cost-cutting efforts.
Just three years earlier, the foundry was the subject of
controversy after several workers filed complaints about work
done on the industrial oven.

According to the 2017 indictment, supervisors at the plant misled
inspectors with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) by
providing test results of samples taken from inside the oven.

The report said "no asbestos was present," but a second sample
taken from the outside of the oven -- where workers had been
using jackhammers and chisels to remove insulation -- tested
positive for chrysotile asbestos.

Exposure to dust containing microscopic asbestos fibers can lead
to serious health conditions, including mesothelioma, later in
life.

Safety officials with Grede reportedly tried to cover up the
exposure, sending out a company email that read: "Berlin staff:
KEEP THIS INFORMATION UNDER RAP (sic) until we can hammer out our
final plans of dealing with this issue."

In April 2015 -- just two months before announcing the layoffs
and closing the Berlin foundry -- Grede agreed to a $98,000
settlement with OSHA for repeatedly exposing workers at its
Bowntown, Wisconsin, factory to dangerous silica dust.

Grede filed for bankruptcy reorganization in 2009 and merged into
Metaldyne Performance Group (MPG) in 2015. A year later, MPG was
acquired by American Axle & Manufacturing in a $1.6-billion deal.

Federal Requirements in Place to Protect Workers

Asbestos was one of the first hazardous air pollutants regulated
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Section 112 of the CAA establishes National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which lists specific
compounds known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious
health conditions.

The EPA first added asbestos to NESHAP in 1973, and since then,
the regulation has been amended several times.

Any owner or operator of a demolition or renovation project who
knowingly fails or causes another employee to not comply with
these standards is in violation of the regulations. Penalties can
include five years in prison and a fine. A second conviction can
double those penalties.

In the Berlin factory case, the indictment named three people:
Peter Mark, corporate safety and environmental director; Christy
McNamee, safety coordinator at the Grede foundry in Berlin; and
Steven O'Connell, operations manager at the facility. Grede was
also named as a defendant.

As part of the plea deal, Grede pleaded guilty to criminal
negligence and agreed to pay the $340,000 to the 11 employees in
addition to the $200,000 fine. The charges against the
supervisors were dismissed as part of the agreement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aubin Ruling Changes Nothing in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Alan Pickert, Anita Pryor and Rebecca
Vinocur, and their law firms have litigated thousands of products
liability cases in Florida involving asbestos.  They wrote to
correct the misimpression left by the Jan. 10, 2018, Law360
article entitled How A Fla. Verdict Could Change Asbestos
Litigation that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Aubin v.
Union Carbide changed products liability law in Florida to the
benefit of persons who are injured or killed as a result of
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies After Years of Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired civil engineer from
Lyndhurst died as a consequence of exposure to asbestos on dusty
building sites.

Winchester Coroner's court heard how Garry Clatworthy of Ringwood
Road, Stoney Cross was exposed to the hazardous substance while
working on various sites between 1971 and 1990.

In a statement given before his death the 69-year-old described
working condition on site as "dusty and dirty."

Mr Clatworthy was diagnosed with progressive malignant
mesothelioma in March 2017, an aggressive form of lung cancer
which often develops as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Mr Clatworthy died at Southampton General Hospital on December
19, 2017.

Senior Coroner Grahame Short said that in the balance of
probabilities Mr Clatworthy had died as a result of his exposure
to asbestos and recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Refused Planning After Asbestos Dump
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sallsbury Journal reported that a businessman who dumped asbestos
waste has been refused planning permission after councillors
deemed his actions to be "illegal".

Carl Chambers, managing director of Salisbury retailer In-Excess,
bought Nightwood Farm in West Grimstead in 2015 to develop into a
distribution centre for his firm.

In October last year he applied to Wiltshire Council for
retrospective planning permission for grass-planted embankments.
But the council's southern area planning committee unanimously
refused him permission over concerns about waste dumped in the
bund during the build.

The Environment Agency (EA) found spoil used to form the bunds
contained a "very low" concentration of asbestos, which posed a
"relatively low risk" to health. It did not prosecute Mr
Chambers.

However, Mr Chambers' actions and subsequent application received
backlash from local residents, as well as parish councils in East
Grimstead and Alderbury.

Wiltshire councillor Richard Britton said that the waste dumping
was "deplorable" and could affect those living around the farm
and place a "residual risk" to nearby water.

The application was called before the committee after council
officers recommended it for approval, citing the lack of
objections from government agencies.

After the meeting Cllr Britton said: "Members regarded this
latest thing as simply an attempt to legalise illegal dumping of
waste including hazardous waste in ancient woodland. Essentially
this is an illegal act."

He added that there was "general condemnation" and "resentment"
from councillors that they had been advised to allow an
application that was "basically illegal".

Prior to the application being lodged Mr Chambers said tests had
been conducted which showed there was no criminality and the
material was better left on site.

The amount of asbestos was 10 times lower than the permitted
minimum, he said, and posed no health risk.

"We have two families living on site, including myself, so the
concern for our own health is paramount," he added.

"There would have been no point to make an application if any of
these agencies had raised concerns. I believe we were proactive
and most professional and diligent in our actions."

Mr Chambers added that his company had been "under extreme
scrutiny from day one".

"We have invested a considerable amount of time, money and energy
in this site," he said. "Some of the site was in a very poor
state. We have a certificate of legal use for two buildings to be
used as Class B8 storage and distribution and three units for any
agricultural purposes, and that is what they will be used for.
The site for us is long-term storage and our use is very
minimal."

Concerns were also raised about the number of trees that had been
felled to make way for the bunds. Mr Chambers said only three had
been cut down, and not hundreds as had been claimed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Urges Talk on Open Pit, Exposed Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Hurley of The Southern Gazette reported that Baie Verte
Mayor Brandon Philpott says it's time for all key players to
start talking about the open pit and exposed asbestos fibres at
the former Advocate Mines site again.

His comment came following Canada's recent action toward its
promised ban of the use, sale, import and export of asbestos and
products containing that hazardous material.

The federal health and environment departments are supporting
changes to eliminate the market for asbestos products in the
country.

The proposed regulations include an exemption to allow for
cleanup of asbestos residue around former mines in an attempt to
redevelop the sites.

Regulations specifically refer to 800 million tonnes of mining
residues in the province of Quebec, but do not mention
Newfoundland and Labrador or the former mine in Baie Verte.

Mining residues can contain valuable metals such as magnesium.

The announcement also notes rehabilitation plans for mine sites
and mining residues are authorized by provincial governments.

Philpott wonders what this announcement and subsequent actions
could mean for the mine and area.
"One of the exposed sides of that open pit mine, I was told, had
enough asbestos to supply all of the exports that Canada had
going out for over 30 years," he said. "You have wide-open fibres
down there on the side of that pit, if that turns into a grant or
a fund.

"We have an open pit mine that has been on the backburner for so
long, I think it is time to look at that again."

The mayor said previous councils and community members have
lobbied for site cleanup or additional economic activity in the
past.

Asbestos tailings have been a resource for operations in
Quebec -- namely in Asbestos, Que. Tailings are mined for
magnesium.

In the mid-2000s, the provincial government underwent two phases
of an environmental site assessment at both the former Baie Verte
and Rambler Mines properties.

In 2008 and 2009, the provincial government committed to removing
deteriorating buildings, fuel tanks, and contaminated soil and
chemicals over a three-year program.

The Department of Natural Resources reported at the time that it
would cost about $10 million for the cleanup.

"At the Baie Verte mine there are over 190 million tonnes of
waste rock and 47 million tonnes of tailings were produced," Alex
Smith, a department representative, told the congregation at the
22nd Annual Baie Verte Mining Conference in 2009.

The Nor'wester made multiple requests to the provincial
department for information and/or interviews on the status of the
former Advocate Mines. The initial request was acknowledged, but
a subsequent request went unreturned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Findland Finds Russian Gas-Masks Have Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Watch reported that Finnish authorities have found that
old Russian gas masks from the Cold War, containing asbestos
filters, are being sold illegally online. They have notified
other European authorities.

They analysed the filters last year in masks produced from 1983-
1988 for use by adults and children. All of them contained
asbestos.

The Norwegian Environment Directorate found the masks were also
on sale in Norway. One company was asked to remove the
advertising but it reappeared in January, the directorate says.

It advises that the masks should not be sold or used because of
the risk to health. And they must be disposed of at municipal
waste centres, securely packaged.

Asbestos dust is a carcinogen, and the production, sale and use
of the fibres is banned in the EU.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Not Removed Prior to Bldg Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Rushton of Illinois Times reported that Ann Ridgeway was on
her porch when the crash came.

No one had told neighbors that a massive metal building was going
to fall that day in October 2014. Towering more than 10 stories,
the so-called dryer building -- locals say artificial sweetener
was once made there -- produced plenty of dust and debris in its
death throe.

"It looked like something was on fire," Ridgeway recalls. Brian
Dearco was repairing his roof a couple blocks away from
Ridgeway's home, directly across the street from the mill.

"As soon as the building came down, millions of mosquitoes and
gnats came out," Dearco says. "I broke out in a rash. My wife
did, too. . . . You could smell it in the air after that building
came down. It smelled like gas, so the fire department came."

Responding to reports of a collapsed building, fire engines
swarmed. But there was nothing to worry about, an owner of the
site assured firefighters -- he had a permit to demolish the
building, according to fire marshal Chris Richmond. And so the
fire engines left, and work resumed, with crews sorting through
rubble to recover scrap.

There was, in fact, plenty to worry about.

Permit applications filed with the city stated that asbestos
inside the building would be cleaned up prior to demolition, but
that didn't happen. No regulator would have allowed the dryer
building to be torn down absent pre-demolition cleanup of
asbestos, which was used as a building material throughout the
plant.

Once common as a building material, asbestos is a carcinogen that
can cause chronic and irreversible lung damage. The more
exposure, the greater the risk, and it can take years for
symptoms to develop. The mill contained a lot of asbestos.

"You just never know," says Kevin Turner, site cleanup
coordinator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "One
asbestos fiber from 20 years ago could cause some sort of lung
issue. Or you could be exposed to it for 10 years and not have
any issues."

A consultant who conducted an environmental assessment of the
site in 1991, the same year that Pillsbury sold the mill to
Cargill, found pipes and tanks tagged with caution labels warning
that asbestos was present. Pillsbury had an ongoing asbestos
abatement program based in part on a 1987 survey that included
taking as many as 500 samples of material throughout the plant
and testing for asbestos. Pillsbury during the late 1980s
identified priorities and started cleaning up sections of the
plant, according to the 1991 report by the Minnsesota-based
consultant.

"The facility has implemented an asbestos awareness training
program for its personnel," the consultant wrote more than a
quarter-century ago. "Asbestos removal and disposal is performed
by licensed asbestos removal contractors on an as-needed basis."

Subsequent surveys found plenty of risk. A 1996 report
commissioned by Cargill, one of the planet's largest food
companies that acquired the mill in 1991, identified more than a
mile of pipe insulated with potentially deadly asbestos. In 2008,
a scrapper in search of electrical equipment hired a consultant
who found asbestos in subterranean electrical vaults.

Soon after the dryer building came down in 2014, the city
demanded that the mill owners obtain proper permits while also
registering buildings on the site as vacant. "That's kind of
where things really kind of started rolling," says Springfield
fire marshal Chris Richmond.

But real heat didn't arrive until the late summer of 2015, when
state regulators got a call from a man who'd been getting paid in
cash to cut asbestos insulation from pipes with a linoleum knife,
then stuff the carcinogenic waste into plastic garbage bags. It's
not clear what might have prompted the apparent falling out
between Don Dufer, the man with the utility knife who blew the
whistle, and Joey Chernis IV, the man who hired him -- Duter
contacted the state shortly after he was fired, according to
court documents. Regulators say a whole lot of damage was done
before a court injunction stopped work in the fall of 2015.

Spreading contamination

If Springfield was Gotham and The Joker needed a hideout, he
could do a lot worse than Pillsbury Mill.

Although the dryer building, a boiler room and parts of
warehouses have been demolished, an estimated 850,000 square feet
of space remain. Neighbors say the cops have told them that
officers won't go inside the cyclone fence that surrounds the
property. Springfield police did not respond to an inquiry, but
it isn't hard to imagine why police officers wouldn't venture
inside the mill.

For one thing, it's dark, with plenty of places for bad guys to
hide. For another, large sections of floor and other structural
parts of the building are missing. There is also pollution.

Left alone, asbestos isn't necessarily dangerous stuff. Indeed,
the silver coating on massive grain elevators on the mill's east
side contains asbestos. Regulators say that the coating is
nothing to worry about, at least not yet. But tearing away
insulation and other materials that contain asbestos can set free
carcinogenic fibers that can float in the air and cause
substantial health risks. And that, regulators say, is exactly
what has happened inside Pillsbury Mill.

"(T)he results of the scrapping and demolition activities have
left a large amount of loose and friable asbestos all through the
buildings and asbestos containing rubble and debris outside of
the buildings which is exposed to the elements," Turner wrote a
year ago in a memo assessing the situation.

Some of that loose asbestos was in the dryer building, according
to federal prosecutors. Richmond, the fire marshal, downplays any
threat to the neighborhood, although he acknowledges that
witnesses saw a large cloud of dust rise when the building fell.
"Some of that dust cloud presumably went throughout the
neighborhood," Richmond says. "All the testing done with the
Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA -- asbestos particulate tests and
air monitoring -- has shown very little if any asbestos made it
outside the fenced industrial property. Presumably, the lion's
share, even all of it, settled within the property."

Court documents, however, paint a darker picture. "By improperly
handling and depositing (asbestos), defendants and/or their
agents have caused or allowed uncontrolled discharges of asbestos
fibers into the environment, creating a substantial danger to the
environment and the public health and welfare, endangering the
health and well-being of defendant's workers, nearby residents of
the facility and the general public," lawyers with the state
attorney general's office wrote in a 2015 request for an
injunction to halt work. The injunction was granted.

Asbestos from the dryer building and other parts of the Pillsbury
Mill likely has spread far and wide.

"All of that debris that was asbestos contaminated was taken by
demolition recyclers throughout the Midwest in its contaminated
form," Richmond says.

The plant itself remains a hazard. Proper asbestos removal
requires copious amounts of water, sprayed just-so while workers
remove asbestos-contaminated material to prevent poisonous fibers
from becoming airborne. But no water was on hand when Dufer used
stripped asbestos from more than a mile of pipe.

Without water to keep it out of the air, asbestos fibers attached
themselves to dust particles throughout the plant, including
particles from the illegal demolition of the dryer building.
"When you've got contaminated dust settling, it contaminates what
it settles on," Richmond explains. "It settles on horizontal
surfaces, and that's where it remains until it gets stirred up."

So long as the mill is empty, with no dust getting kicked up,
there is, at least in theory, no problem. But the plant hasn't
been empty, despite no-trespassing signs and a fence topped by
razor and barbed wire in various states of repair.

"Listen," Dearco says as he stands outside his house. Sure
enough, from a football field away, the sound of metal-on-metal
clanging floats up from the direction of the mill. Someone, it
sounds like, is in there doing something.

Ridgeway can see the route from her porch. All they have to do,
she says, is get a boost up to a concrete ledge that traverses a
small building and leads to the upper portion of the cyclone
fence that's supposed to keep trespassers out. That the fence is
somewhat a joke is driven home by the presence of a piece of
portable scaffolding, apparently scrounged from within the mill,
just inside the main gate. The scaffolding is positioned such
that materials could easily be lifted over the gate and onto a
vehicle parked outside, and mushed-down barbed wire atop the gate
suggests that's exactly what has happened.

Junkies and homeless adults ignoring "Danger: Asbestos" signs to
steal scrap is one thing. The nightmare scenario is kids being
kids.

"Everybody wants to do a little Tom Sawyering," offers John
Keller, president of the Pillsbury Mill Neighborhood Association,
the only neighborhood association with a Superfund namesake.
Regulators say they're well aware.

"Kids are kids," Turner says. "I look at it from when I was a
kid. If there was an abandoned building, boom, we were in it.
That is a population that we'd be concerned with."

"We live in a good town"

The mill wasn't always like this.

When Keller helped launch the neighborhood association in the
1990s, the mill was still open. But just barely.

By the time Cargill purchased the mill from Pillsbury in 1991,
the plant had trimmed operations, reducing employment to fewer
than 350 workers. At its peak, the plant had employed 1,500
people. It was built on the eve of the Great Depression, and
Pillsbury had to be persuaded of both an adequate water supply
and paved streets, plus railroad access, to the site before
committing to a $1.5 million investment in 1929.

"We live in a good town," the Illinois State Journal gushed
shortly before the mill opened, noting that 120 building permits
had been issued in September 1929, just one month before the
stock market crashed and sent the entire nation into economic
catastrophe. "We know it, and large industries are realizing the
fact more and more."

Through the years, the mill manufactured flour as well as a
variety of cake and baking mixes. The neighborhood smelled like
Grandma's kitchen and boasted grocery stores and butcher shops
and taverns and restaurants. The mill was a beacon.

"At nighttime, it used to be lit up," recalls Keller, who no
longer lives in the neighborhood but still spends time there,
picking up trash. "You come in from Riverton, you go over the
overpass, the first thing you saw was the mill sticking up."

By the late 1980s, Pillsbury had cut back operations and was
looking to get out. It sold the mill to Cargill in 1991 for $19.2
million, roughly, in inflation-adjusted dollars, what the plant
had cost to build when Hoover was in the White House. Cargill,
the nation's largest privately held corporation, closed the mill
in 2001. Seven years later, it sold the mill to Ley Metals
Recycling for $257,000, less than a quarter of what the plant was
worth, according to Sangamon County taxing authorities.

After filing required paperwork with the Illinois EPA and
receiving permits, Ley removed asbestos from some of the premises
to allow salvage operations, then flipped the plant in 2013 to an
Indiana-based salvage company. Sangamon County property records
show no sales price; rather, the mill changed hands on a
contract-for-deed basis, records show. Neither Jim Ley, owner of
Ley Metals, nor owners of the Indiana company could be reached
for comment.

The Indiana company owned the mill for less than a year before
selling it to PM LLC, an ownership group that includes Chernis,
According to court documents, Joseph Chernis, Chernis' father,
helped oversee salvage operations at the mill. "Joey Chernis was
generally in charge of the facility and its demolition," lawyers
for the state wrote in a 2015 motion asking that work be stopped.
Paperwork in the county recorder's office shows that no money
changed hands when the Chernises acquired the property. Once
again, the deal was on a contract-for-deed basis, according to
county records, that presumably involved a cut of whatever monies
were realized from scrap operations.

Chernis and his father have a history with Springfield code
enforcers. After acquiring a long-vacant icehouse near Lincoln's
home on Edwards Street via foreclosure, the Chernises in 2013
leveled the building, then let the debris sit for more than a
year, prompting court intervention to force a proper cleanup even
as the Chernises prepared to acquire the Pillsbury plant.

That the mill was approaching a brink wasn't a secret. In 2006,
after public brainstorming sessions cosponsored by the Illinois
EPA, an arm of the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce
published a report suggesting what might be done with the vacant
site, which was still owned by Cargill. Among the suggestions was
a tax-increment financing district.

"We're committed to pursuing this until we have exhausted all our
resources, or we have some alternatives," Bradley Warren,
director of the chamber group, told the State Journal-Register in
2006. Two years later, Cargill sold the mill for scrap, with no
other plans for the future in sight.

Pillsbury Mill isn't alone, and perfect answers are rare. In
western New York state, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency last spring ordered the Beech-Nut
Baby Food Co. to pay cleanup costs at a vacant factory the
company sold in 2013, after determining that asbestos cleanup
costs would total $1.7 million for half of the 27-acre site. The
sales price plummeted from $1 million to $200,000 after cleanup
costs became known, according to media reports. Beech-nut refused
to obey the EPA cleanup order, saying that asbestos problems were
caused by improper demolition after the company sold the property
to a salvage company that didn't pay property taxes. Late last
year, Montgomery County, where the factory is located, agreed to
pay to remove asbestos from the site at a cost that could reach
$10 million. The county is hoping that state and federal grants
will kick in.

Cargill did not respond to an emailed inquiry asking why the
company didn't remove asbestos before selling the Springfield
mill or otherwise ensure that the plant wouldn't end up a
Superfund site. The cleanup overseen by the federal EPA in
Springfield has cost $1.8 million. Nearly 2,200 tons of
contaminated debris has been removed.

"These types of facilities that have asbestos are all over the
country," says Turner, who says he's overseen at least a dozen
government-funded cleanups of such sites in Illinois since he
began work in the Superfund program in 1989. "There was nothing
in Pillsbury that scared me. There was nothing in Pillsbury that
made me nervous or that I had not dealt with before. The only
thing with Pillsbury was its size. It was the largest cleanup of
this nature that I have ever done."

And the job isn't finished. Turner believes demolition is the
next logical step, although he acknowledges that he doesn't know
who would pay or what it might cost. For now, an injunction
barring any scrapping operations remains in place as part of a
lawsuit filed by the state against Chernis and other mill owners
for improper disposal of asbestos. In addition, Chernis is
awaiting sentencing in federal court after pleading guilty to
charges relating to improper cleanup of asbestos and making false
statements in the state court case. Jail time is mandatory under
federal sentencing protocols. Mark Wykoff, Chernis' attorney,
declined comment.

An obsolete mill. A massive amount of asbestos. A series of deals
conveying title from one scrap company to the next. And now, a
post-apocalyptic scene ringed by cyclone fence and razor wire in
the midst of residential neighborhood. Was this something that
anyone should have seen coming? Yes, Richmond acknowledges.

"Like a freight train," he says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Sites Named for Potential Redevelopment
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Thomas of Tribune Review reported that a federal
Environmental Protection Agency named three Pennsylvania sites
among 30 on the Superfund National Priorities List(NPL) with the
greatest redevelopment and commercial potential.

The three Pennsylvania sites are: The BoRit Asbestos Superfund
site in Ambler, Montgomery County; the Metal Bank Superfund site
in northeast Philadelphia, and the Crater Resources Inc./Keystone
Coke Co./Alan Wood Steel Co. Superfund site (aka Crater
Resources) in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County.

From the early 1900s to the late 1960s, the BoRit Asbestos
Superfund site was the repository of discarded asbestos-
containing material from a nearby asbestos products manufacturing
plant. The site has an asbestos waste pile, a reservoir, and a
closed park.

The Site was added to the NPL in 2009 for cleanup because nearby
resdients could potentially be exposed to airborne asbestos and
to asbestos contamination in and along Tannery Run, Rose Valley
Creek, and the Wissahickon Creek.

As a Superfund site, BoRit has been eligible for a cleanup using
federal Superfund program funding. EPA retains the right to
pursue responsible parties for reimbursement of funds at all
Superfund sites.

So far, the 32-acre site has had stream bank stabilization,
installation of a soil cover across many areas of the site, and
reservoir draining, re-grading, capping and refilling.

EPA selected the final cleanup plan for the site in 2017, which
incorporates the previous cleanup with post-construction
sampling, routine inspections, long-term operation and
maintenance activities, and controls regarding approval of future
use activities.

"EPA is more than a collaborative partner to remediate the
nation's most contaminated sites, we're also working to
successfully integrate Superfund sites back into communities
across the country," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a
press release issued by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.

"Today's redevelopment list incorporates Superfund sites ready to
become catalysts for economic growth and revitalization," he
said.

Superfund sites on the list have significant redevelopment
potential based on previous outside interest, access to
transportation corridors, land values, and other critical
development drivers, according to the DEP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Hospital Asbestos Find Hindered Repair Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiji Broadcasting Corporation reported that asbestos discovered
at the Lautoka Hospital has hindered repair work on the fire-
damaged operating theatres and X-Ray unit.

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Health Philip Davis says
it's unclear how much asbestos is in the building.

"We've not been able to start the repairs yet because there are
issues there particularly regarding asbestos so obviously looking
after the interest of our workforce and we need to investigate
and address the asbestos issue before we can address the
repairs."

Davis says they're working to assess how much asbestos there is
and how it can be safely cleared and contained before any other
work continues.

Meanwhile, Davis adds some services have been moved off the
premises.

"We've got various arrangements in place for X-rays, we have a
mobile unit, we've also moved another unit across from Suva and
we've got an arrangement with a local private provider to
undertake any extra x-rays that were unable to do using those
mobile units. In terms of the operating theatres, there are two
other operating theatres that are still in use at Lautoka. And
we're also using, putting extra demands on the OT down in Nadi so
that's enabling us to keep on top of the routine."

Davies adds given the limitations, Lautoka Hospital will also be
unable to accommodate any visiting overseas specialist teams.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inhaling Asbestos Fibers Causes Farmers' Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
FarmingUK reported that farmers have been urged to take simple
steps by a new safety initiative to avoid risk when carrying out
building maintenance.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has said farmers can take
simple steps to avoid, or manage, risk when carrying out building
maintenance as it launches its latest inspection initiative.
HSE inspectors will be visiting farms across the country in
January to ensure risks during building maintenance, such as
falling from a roof or ladder are being controlled and measures
are in place to protect farmers, their workers and contractors.

Farm related deaths

The initiative comes after the latest HSE statistics show that in
2016/17 there have been 27 deaths and 13,000 non-fatal injuries
to workers in Great Britain's agriculture, forestry and fishing
sectors.

Falls are the second highest cause of death on British farms --
every year at least eight people die falling from a height.

Those who survive suffer broken bones and life changing
consequences. Falls often happen from roofs, lofts, ladders,
vehicles, bale stacks, and unsuitable access equipment, such as
buckets or potato boxes.

Breathing in asbestos continues to kill many people every year.
It's dangerous to drill or cut, and HSE has urged people who work
on the farm to know where it is and how to avoid breathing in the
harmful fibres.

The dangers of asbestos has been highlighted after an inquest
heard that a pig farmer died from years of exposure.

Falling from height

Throughout the inspection initiative, inspectors will be checking
how the risk of falling from height is being controlled during
building maintenance.

This will include whether work at height can be avoided, if the
right equipment is being used, if a specialist contractor has
been used for high-risk tasks, if there are signs to warn people
of fragile roofs and whether the work is being carried out by
workers with the right training and skills.

They will also be assessing how exposure to deadly asbestos is
being prevented.

This will include whether there is an up to date plan showing
where asbestos is present on a farm, whether asbestos is labelled
or marked, that workers and contractors are aware of where the
asbestos is located and how the removal of asbestos is planned,
organised with a safe method of disposal.

Dangerous fibres

Head of HSE's Agriculture Sector Rick Brunt said falls from
height are still one of the main causes of death and injury on
Britain's farms.

"Across the country we know that plenty of farmers routinely use
the right kit and do building maintenance and repair safely.

"Despite this, falls from height are still one of the main causes
of death and injury on Britain's farms, and each year too many
farmers are working with asbestos and breathing in dangerous
fibres.

"HSE is calling on anyone involved in building maintenance and
repair work on farms to use the free guidance from our website to
make sure they comply with the law and do the job safely.

"This inspection initiative is about making sure that farmers and
workers doing building maintenance and repair stay safe and go
home healthy from their work."

The dangers of overhead power lines have also been highlighted in
a new initiative by the UK's electricity network operators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Former Mid-City Lanes
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kirby of The Daily Freeman reported that the vacant Midtown
bowling alley where an apartment/commercial building is to be
constructed must have asbestos removed before it can be torn
down, according to the architect designing the new project.

Scott Dutton said the asbestos work at the former Mid-City Lanes
is likely to start in April and take two to three weeks to
complete.

Demolition will start once the asbestos removal is complete, and
will take about a week to complete, Dutton said. It then will
take about another week to cart away the debris.

The Mid-City Lanes building, at 20 Cedar St., is being taken down
to make room for RUPCO's Energy Square, or E Square, building.
The five-story structure is to have commercial space on the
ground floor and 57 apartments, with rental rates based on
tenants' incomes, on the upper floors.

There also will be an urban park and 160-kilowatt solar energy
array on the roof.

Mid-City Lanes closed in mid-2014. RUPCO, a Kingston-based
affordable housing agency, acquired the former bowling alley this
past September, with NeighborWorks Capital providing financing
for the $615,109 purchase.

In December, the state announced RUPCO had been awarded the tax
credits it needs to build E Square.

Construction of the new 70,000-square-foot building is to start
in the spring and be completed in the fall of 2019, RUPCO has
said. The general contractor will be Troy-based U.W. Marx.

The project is forecast to cost $22 million.

The E Square project will benefit from a 32-year payment-in-lieu-
of-taxes, or PILOT, deal that was approved in March.
The deal calls for RUPCO to pay a total of $25,000 for the first
two years of the PILOT, $82,000 per year for each of the next 10
years, $89,000 per year for each of the following 10 years, and
$96,000 per year for each of the final 10 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closes Bookshop After Asbestos Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Courier Mail reported that a southeast Queensland school has
had to close its uniform and book shop after asbestos was
discovered.

The asbestos was found at Southern Cross Catholic College, at
Scarborough north of Brisbane.

It was found in a small amount of soil at the secondary campus
during construction of a new building.

College Principal Brett Horton said an Environmental Hygienist
was supervising the asbestos removal and had established an
exclusion zone.

Staff were meant to return to the school and the parents were
expected to collect text books and uniforms.

Mr Horton said as a precaution the decision had been made to
close the school.

"We apologise for the inconvenience the closure of the campus
facilities may cause at this busy time, however the safety of our
community is our number one focus and we would prefer this
inconvenience rather than put our families and staff at any level
of risk," he said.

The contamination is isolated to an area of 10 sqm and consists
of building waste from the 1960s.

Students will be able to collect their textbooks when they return
to school


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Examines Residential Insulation, Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Medical News Bulletin reported that recent Australian study
examined the association between asbestos exposure from
residential insulation and the risk of cancers such as
mesothelioma.

Until the nineties, asbestos-contaminated material was the main
insulators in most homes in countries such as Australia, Canada,
and the United States. There is substantial evidence to prove
that asbestos causes mesothelioma and certain other cancers like
cancer of the lung, ovary and larynx. This evidence was mostly
obtained from those exposed at their place of work such as mine
workers, those in manufacturing and construction industries as
well as their family members, and those who live close to
asbestos-related industries. Little is known about the link
between asbestos exposure in residential properties and risk of
cancer.

Does Living in an Affected House Increase the Chance of Cancer?

To determine the association between the risk of mesothelioma and
other cancers and living in a house insulated with loose-fill
asbestos, Korda and colleagues conducted a cohort study in the
Australian Capital Territory (ACT). This study was published in
The Lancet Public Health and included all those who were enrolled
in the Australian universal health insurance provider from the
Australian Capital Territory between November 1, 1983 and
December 31, 2013.

The study classified individuals as either exposed (those who had
lived at a residential property that has asbestos insulation
during the study period) or unexposed (those that have never
lived in an asbestos-affected residential property). The outcome
of interest for this cohort was the development of cancer. The
cancers that were examined included mesothelioma (the primary
cancer of interest), lung (including bronchus, lung, and
trachea), ovarian, laryngeal, pharyngeal, stomach, and
colorectal. Four other common cancers with little or no evidence
of association with asbestos (bladder cancer, kidney cancer,
melanoma, and prostate cancer) were also examined.

During the study period, 1,035,578 individuals were identified as
those who have ever lived in the ACT, of which, 17,248 were
exposed (had lived in affected residential property). A total of
285 people (all men) had mesothelioma -- seven of whom had lived
at an affected residential property before their diagnosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Drug-Hit Toilets
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Seaward of Swindon Advertiser reported that a community group
stand to lose a GBP12k grant to refurbish drug-hit toilets after
asbestos was apparently discovered by council staff.

The Mechanics Institution Trust secured the cash from charity
Groundwork to makeover the toilet block in Faringdon Road Park,
where last summer 200 discarded needles were found in one day.
The group hoped to turn the red brick building into a base for
their volunteer gardeners, who work on the historic railway
village park.

But the trust stands to lose the GBP12,000 grant.

The latest delay comes after officers from Swindon Borough
Council, which owns the building, discovered asbestos in the
toilet block.

But sources close to the discussions suggested that this could be
an "excuse" that "many people don't believe".

South Swindon Parish Council chairman Chris Watts warned that it
could spell the end for efforts to refurbish the toilet block.
He told a meeting of the parish's leisure and amenities
committee: "The latest we have back from the council is that the
building has excessive asbestos in it. This is not something we
can verify. Their suggestion is that the costs of actually
resolving the asbestos problem in the building would be far
greater than the actual amount of money they have."

The parish hope to take on responsibility of the park in the
future.

Daniel Rose, director of the Mechanics Institution Trust, said:
"We continue to be very frustrated by the lack of communication
and progress on this issue with the council. We want to see that
building regenerated."

He said that the trust had been given "extension after extension"
to their Groundwork grant -- and faced losing the GBP12,000.

A spokesman for Swindon Borough Council said: "We are liaising
with the parish council over the future of the toilet block in
order to reach a resolution that suits all parties."

Last July, shopkeeper Paul White complained to the Adver after
finding a cache of 200 drug needles around the toilet block.
He said: "I saw one person injecting themselves in the stomach
out in the open, groups of people going into the toilets and
doing who knows what, it beggars belief.

"This is not a nice place to be at the moment. I really feel for
the residents here."

In response, the borough said that its officers had begun daily
inspections of the park.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Costs in Plant Up 36%
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gazette reported that the cost of cleaning up the site of the
old Sinclair meatpacking plant, damaged by floodwaters and then
fire, keeps growing.

The Cedar Rapids City Council quietly approved a change order for
D.W. Zinser of Walford that increased the cost of an asbestos
remediation project undertaken last year to $2.85 million, up 36
percent from the originally contracted $2.09 million.

This brings the total tab for cleaning up the site Cedar Rapids
acquired a decade ago to more than $20 million.

While the quantity of removed material didn't change, the ratio
of asbestos-containing material and non-asbestos material
changed," said Rob Davis, the Cedar Rapids flood control manager.
"It is more expensive to remove asbestos material than non-
asbestos material, and that lead to the higher costs."

The site was cleared to make room for a levee and water detention
basin, with some of the land potentially destined for private
redevelopment.

The quantity of asbestos containing material was increased by
19,000 tons, costing approximately $1.2 million, while the
quantity of non-asbestos containing material was reduced by
27,000 tons, or about $373,000, Davis said.

"It was unknown if the material would contain asbestos until
crews began digging it up, so it is hard to set an estimate for
the bid documents," Davis added. "But the pricing rate used was
from established bid rates already approved, so there was no un-
negotiated change order pricing."

Cedar Rapids purchased the 30-acre site at the bend in the Cedar
River, just south of the New Bohemia District, in 2007 as part of
a brownfield cleanup project. A grant from the Hall-Perrine
Foundation covered half the $4 million purchase price.

The former site of a slaughtering operation for cattle, sheep,
hens and other animals later was devastated by the flood in 2008
and then fire in 2009. This prompted a demolition and clean up of
the site.

The same contractor -- Zinser -- was hired for $7.75 million to
do the demolition and disposal of the waste, but the final
payment grew to $17.3 million, plus an additional $700,000 in
miscellaneous expenses, city officials reported.  The latest
project for which council approved the change order was to remove
a buried foundation that was identified during the earlier
demolition but never removed because it was not in the original
contract scope.

City officials had reported the Federal Emergency Management
Agency would cover much of the first contract's cost. But FEMA
pulled back after concluding in a written ruling it could not
determine the reasonableness of the reimbursement because the
city made an "intentionally inaccurate representation" of the
scope of the demolition, possibly influencing who bid on the
project, and then did not seek new bids as the work grew.

In 2014, The Gazette reported FEMA said it would reimburse the
city $1.3 million of the city's overall request, which was the
actual cost of the Sinclair demolition unrelated to the removal
and disposal costs. However, city staff was unable to detail how
much taxpayers wound up paying.

City Council member Dale Todd, whose District 3 includes the
site, said the city faced pressure to do something with the
troubled property and had little choice but to take it on.

"At the time, there were significant efforts underway in Dubuque
and Coralville, specifically the Ice Harbor and the early visions
for what is now Iowa River Landing," Todd said of the
developments born of reclaiming brownfields. "We were looking at
what other communities were doing and it was competitive. It was
the only area in the core of the city and there was no better
brownfield site in the Midwest" to redevelop.

"At the end of the day, there was nobody else that was going to
do it," he said. "You either deal with the liability or it
continues to linger out there as a blight in your community."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railroad Workers' Case Allowed to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Meosthelioma.net reported that the United States District Court
in Kansas recently granted the daughter of a pipefitter with the
right to proceed with her mesothelioma lawsuit against The Budd
Company. Nancy Little's father, Robert L. Rabe, had been a long-
time employee of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, and as
a result he was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe insulation
manufactured and sold by The Budd Company to his employer. As a
result of his exposure to the deadly material between 1951 and
the late 1970s he developed asbestos-related malignant
mesothelioma. He died of the disease in December of 2012.

In defending itself against Ms. Little's claims, The Budd Company
chose not to argue against whether their product was responsible
for his mesothelioma, but instead to attempt to avoid their
responsibility through a series of legal technicalities,
including arguing that the case against them should be dismissed
because of Congressional actions that precluded state-based
claims against companies for exposure to asbestos contained in
train equipment. Upon hearing both sides of the argument, the
court denied The Budd Company's motion and ordered that the case
be allowed to proceed to a jury trial.

It is not unusual for companies that have been accused of
responsibility in a malignant mesothelioma death to seek legal
technicalities in order to avoid being held liable for medical
expenses and other damages. In this case The Budd Company went so
far as to argue that a Congressional law called the Federal
Safety Appliance Act, or SAA, which applied to safety appliances
such as ladders, brakes and hand holds, would apply to the
asbestos-contaminated pipe insulation that caused Mr. Rabe's
illness. In response to this defense, the court wrote, "If the
Supreme Court had intended a result as broad as the one defendant
advocates here, Southern Railway could have expressly held that
the SAA preempted the entire field of railway equipment. But it
doesn't Instead, the opinion limits the preemptive effect of the
SAA to "safety appliances."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Uncovers Asbestos Removal at Airport
-----------------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV reported that a whistleblower investigation uncovered that
crews are removing asbestos at Charlotte Douglas International
Airport after a concerned viewer emailed the station.

Airport officials said they contracted with a licensed company
for asbestos removal as part of the terminal renovations
happening in Concourse B.

The asbestos that has been found is non-friable, which means it
doesn't crumble easily, and isn't airborne, according to airport
officials.

Officials said the company contracted by the airport for the
removal has taken steps to ensure the asbestos remains non-
friable during the removal process.

Work areas are clearly marked and are monitored during the
removal process.

Travelers said they did not get a warning about the hazardous
material found in Concourse B.

"It's a little uncomfortable," traveler Scott Johnson said.
Johnson didn't know about the asbestos until Channel 9 told him.
"It wouldn't have changed my travel plans. I still had to come
here," Johnson said.

Other fliers said they should have been informed before they
booked their flight.

Charlotte Douglas airport officials went on to say in a
statement, "It is not uncommon for asbestos to be found in older
buildings during renovation projects. The Airport's terminal
building is 35 years old and is undergoing renovations that will
result in improved lighting, flooring, electrical, and technology
upgrades. The Airport and contractors are committed to ensure a
safe environment to passengers and employees during
construction."



ASBESTOS UPDATE: CFPUA Crews Working to Replace Asbestos Pipe
-------------------------------------------------------------
WWAYTV3.com reported that an asbestos pipe broke while a
contractor was doing storm drain work in the Mohican Trail area.

The CFPUA says crews responded and decided to cut out the
asbestos pipe and replace it with ductile iron pipe.

CFPUA spokeswoman Peg Hall Williams says crews are trained to cut
and remove asbestos pipe.  Williams says there are no health
effects related to asbestos pipes, asbestos-related health issues
are only a concern when the asbestos becomes airborne.
Williams says CFPUA is working to offset the pipe and hopes to
have a permanent solution completed soon.

Meanwhile, there is a precautionary boil water advisory for 301-
722 Mohica Trail.

The advisory will be in effect until water quality testing has
occurred and service returned to normal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Forster Mill Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Ann Bryant of Lewinston Sun Journal  reported that citing
personal reasons, Selectperson Ruth Cushman submitted her
resignation from the Board of Selectpersons.

"But I'm only a phone call away if I can help," Cushman said.
She plans to continue serving until June, when a successor can be
voted in to finish Cushman's term, Town Manager Rhonda Irish
said.

Town elections will now include a one-year selectperson seat to
finish Cushman's term along with three-year selectperson and
school director seats, Irish said.

In other matters, Irish reported that EnviroVantage has completed
a substantial amount of asbestos removal at the former Forster
mill.

During the work, however, more panels of asbestos were
discovered, she said. The new panels are within the third-floor
ceiling and upper wall panels.

Irish does not yet have the exact amount of new asbestos, but
said Ransom Consulting and EnviroVantage were working to estimate
potential costs for removal. Demolition work is not expected to
start until the asbestos-abatement work is completed.

Selectpersons also scheduled a public hearing on potential
changes to the town's parking and traffic ordinance. That hearing
is set for 6 p.m. on Feb. 20.

Irish presented some suggestions for changes to the ordinance.

Selectpersons can vote on the changes after the public hearing,
she said. Copies of the ordinance with suggestions will be
available at the Town Office prior to the hearing.

One suggestion is to eliminate a section that bans U-turns on
Main Street from the bridge at Prospect Street to the Weld Road
intersection.

Another reverses a ruling on turns from High Street onto Main
Street. Vehicles can now only turn right from High Street onto
Main Street and go around the monument to reverse direction.
The suggested change would allow a left turn from from High
Street onto Main Street.

Other suggestions include allowing overnight parking in the High
Street municipal parking lot to registered vehicles. The
ordinance now bans parking in the lot from midnight to 6 a.m.

Selectpersons will also consider allowing overnight parking at
the lot for some downtown apartment tenants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Yanks 12 Items After Asbestos Find
------------------------------------------------------------
WCYB reporetd that Claire's, the popular kids's accessories
chain, is pulling more than a dozen items from store shelves
after a Rhode Island family found asbestos in their six-year-old
daughter's makeup.

Kristi Warner was concerned about the ingredients in her six-
year-old daughter's glitter makeup kit that the family purchased
at their local Claire's. So, the Barrington mom who works for
Deaton Law Firm, mailed the makeup to an independent lab in North
Carolina. Test results revealed the makeup to have Tremolite
Asbestos, a toxic and cancer-causing material, in it. Exposure to
this has been linked to Mesothelioma which is 100 percent
fatal. 

"In the work that we do, we've come across contaminated
cosmetics, but you just assume that a children's product would be
safe," the concerned mom told NBC affiliate WJAR.
She is now looking out for the safety of other children who
might be exposed.

Kristi and her boss, John Deaton, have purchased 17 more Claire's
makeup products from nine different states. The results weren't
good. Tremolite Asbestos was found in every single product.

Claire's has since released a statement saying: "As a result of
today's inquiry from WJAR, we have taken the precautionary
measure of pulling the items in question from sale, and will be
conducting an immediate investigation into the alleged issues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Air Named in Couple's Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Record reported that a couple claims the husband's
diagnosis of asbestosis was caused by exposure to asbestosfibers
during his career. Gerald Carr and Priscilla Carr filed a
complaint on Jan. 10 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court
against Anco Insulations Inc., Buffalo Air Handling Inc., Crosby
Valve LLC.

Gerald Carr and Priscilla Carr filed a complaint on Jan. 10 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Anco Insulations Inc.,
Buffalo Air Handling Inc., Crosby Valve LLC, et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during plaintiff Gerald Carr's career from 1973 to 2016, 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 Sept.
13, 2016, he first became aware that he developed asbestosis, an
asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully
caused.

The plaintiffs hold Anco Insulations Inc., Buffalo Air Handling
Inc., Crosby Valve LLC, and others 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 plaintiffs seek compensatory damages of more than $50,000.
They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-18


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee OKs $38,000 Asbestos Removal Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Barlow of The Gazette reported that Township Committee
unanimously approved a $38,000 asbestos removal contract for the
110-year-old former Municipal Building in the Tuckahoe section of
the township.

Built in 1908 as Upper Township High School, the vacant building
on Mount Pleasant Avenue near the township dog park later served
as the township hall, and then saw use as a train museum.
Mayor Rich Palombo said at the Jan. 8 Township Committee meeting
that he is not sure what will happen with the building next.

That comment was deeply disheartening to Bob Holden, the chairman
of the museum committee of the Historic Preservation Society of
Upper Township, who says he has been in talks with township
officials for the better part of a year about the two-story red-
brick building.

The society hopes to create a museum of township history on the
first floor.

"It just seems like they're hedging their bets," he said in a
phone interview after the meeting. "I just do not understand the
lack of enthusiasm."

At the committee meeting, Palombo talked about the township's
accomplishments in 2017 and its plans for 2018, mentioning the
asbestos abatement project. But he said the township was unsure
what would ultimately happen with the old township hall.

According to Holden, the society has already put $10,000 toward
the expected cost of hiring an architect for improvements and
renovations to the building, and is working on getting a grant to
cover the cost of the work.

Township administrator Scott Morgan said the building is in good
shape, but has not been maintained and would need upgrades before
it could be opened to the public.

He said in a phone interview that the township has been talking
with the historic society about the building, but for now has
made no commitment, nor any final decision on what will happen
there.
The asbestos had to be remediated no matter what the building is
used for, he said.

"The asbestos has to come out," Morgan said.

Any decision on the use of the building can wait until after that
is completed, which he hopes can be by the end of April. Morgan
said the contractor will need to get state permits, which could
take as long as a month, and the work itself could be completed
in about three weeks.

Responding to questions from committee members, township engineer
Paul Dietrich said at the meeting that the asbestos was all
inside the building and would be contained throughout the
project.
"Everything will be closed off and secured, so none of the
asbestos material escapes from the building. Then they make sure
that its properly cleaned," Dietrich said.

The building was the township's high school until Ocean City High
School was built in 1924, according to a published history
prepared by Holden.

It served as the Municipal Building from the 1950s until the new
Municipal Building at 2100 Tuckahoe Road in Petersburg was
completed in 1994, Morgan said.

Holden hopes its next life will be as a repository for township
history. He said the Historic Preservation Society has an
application pending before the Cape May County Open Space Board
for a grant to help fund some of the work, an application that
will need the support of township government to move forward.

The society operates two historic buildings owned by the
township, the old Tuckahoe Railway Station at Mill Road and
Railway Avenue, built in 1894, and the historic Friendship School
on Route 9, a tiny schoolhouse that was built in 1831 and
restored.

Holden said the society leases the properties from the township,
and it is the township that maintains the buildings. He said they
do a fantastic job.

"We don't want to see the Township Committee as adversaries at
all. We would love to see them as partners," he said.

One sticking point has been funding for utilities, which Holden
said he completely understands.

As Holden envisions it, an Upper Township museum would take up
most of the first floor of the building, leaving part of that
floor and the upstairs for other uses. That would mean room
enough for display rooms and for a meeting and lesson area where
Township Committee once met.

Almost every other municipality in Cape May County has its own
historical museum, he said, and the society already has an
extensive collection of books and historic items that could be
displayed.

"We have so many things in storage that the public should see,"
he said. "These things should not be in boxes somewhere, they
should be out for people to see."

It's unlikely a museum could open this year. Holden said that at
best, the historical museum could open in 2019, if the township
ultimately backs the idea.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Pollutes Australian Beach
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Mercer of The West Australian reported that pollution
including building rubble and asbestos is turning up on
Fremantle's Port beach, sparking claims that previous industrial
activity nearby is spoiling the popular spot.

Bicton resident Peter McLarty, who has swum regularly at and
walked along Port beach for decades, said he had been noticing
increasing amounts of waste material on the coast near Leighton
over the past 12 months.

The 72-year-old said the "disturbing" pollution appeared to be
moving north towards Cottesloe and blamed earthworks that were
carried out in the past decade to extend Rous Head.

Mr McLarty said the material only began appearing on the beach 15
years ago, around the same time as the extension, which he said
affected an area that had been used as a dumping ground for waste
by Fremantle Ports and the City of Fremantle.

According to Mr McLarty, the emergence of the pollution on the
beach and its increasing prevalence were not a coincidence and he
wanted the port authority to take responsibility.

"It's been very frustrating getting nowhere trying to defend the
beach," Mr McLarty said.

"What happens is the rocks come and go at various times depending
on the particular tide and the wind and the direction of the
ocean.

"But no matter what happens you can actually see the accumulated
rocks marching northwards.

"This is a major scandal.

"Despite our frustration at trying to point out to the port
authority that it's their obligation to fix this problem -- after
all it is their stuff -- we've been getting nowhere."

A spokeswoman for Fremantle Ports suggested the rocks on Port
beach were a legacy of historic work to create Fremantle Harbour
by dredging the Swan River, pointing out the "rounded nature" of
the material indicated its age.

She stressed there was no evidence of material such as rocks
moving through the seawall that bounded the reclaimed area at
Rous Head.

The spokeswoman also said that the rocks on Port beach "turn up
some years but not others, depending on seasonal conditions and
associated sand movements". "The issue tends to arise when less
sand than usual has returned at the end of winter to cover the
rocky material that normally lies concealed on the seabed," she
said.

"In some years, sand is depleted and rocks exposed. Last year, as
has happened on some other occasions, the erosion of the beach
also exposed an old seawall of granite rocks."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Not Pre-Empted by SAA
------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Kansas federal court has
denied an asbestos defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings, rejecting the company's position that the underlying
claims are pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act and the
Federal Safety Appliance Act (SAA).

In the Jan. 12 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas in part found that it could not conclude that the
plaintiff's allegations were directed at the equipment of
locomotives, as required under the LIA.

The court reached a similar conclusion when assessing the
applicability of the SAA to the plaintiff's claims, saying that
it could.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Says Engr. Husband Died of Asbestos Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hewitt of Get Ready reported that the widow of a former
tool making engineer and building maintenance man from Banstead,
who died of asbestos-related cancer, is looking for her husband's
ex-colleagues to try to find out where and when he was exposed.

Graham Broomfield, a much loved grandfather and father-of-three,
died aged 62 in October 2017, around 16 months after he was first
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung
commonly associated with exposure to asbestos.

Following his death, his wife Linda, 59, has instructed
specialist lawyers in Irwin Mitchell's asbestos-related disease
team to investigate his case and how he ultimately came into
contact with the deadly material.

As part of their work, they are keen to hear from anyone who may
have worked with Mr Broomfield during either his time as a tool
maker in the 1970s or his role as a building maintenance man in
the 1980s and 1990s.

The widow of a former tool making engineer and building
maintenance man from Banstead , who died of asbestos-related
cancer, is looking for her husband's ex-colleagues to try to find
out where and when he was exposed.

Graham Broomfield, a much loved grandfather and father-of-three,
died aged 62 in October 2017, around 16 months after he was first
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung
commonly associated with exposure to asbestos.

Following his death, his wife Linda, 59, has instructed
specialist lawyers in Irwin Mitchell's asbestos-related disease
team to investigate his case and how he ultimately came into
contact with the deadly material.

As part of their work, they are keen to hear from anyone who may
have worked with Mr Broomfield during either his time as a tool
maker in the 1970s or his role as a building maintenance man in
the 1980s and 1990s.

"Sadly Graham was not advised during his lifetime that he may be
able to bring a legal claim, which means we are keen for specific
details regarding any asbestos exposure that may have happened
during his working life.

"As such, we would be hugely grateful to anyone who may be able
to come forward and provide details regarding the presence of
asbestos during his time working at various sites across the
1970s, 1980s and 1990s."

Mr Broomfield undertook a tool making apprenticeship between 1971
and 1974 and worked as a qualified engineer until around 1980.
Across that period he was employed on production lines at sites
in Epsom, Tolworth and Leatherhead.

He then went on to carry out building maintenance work in and
Kingswood and Epsom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prof. Says Asbestos Isn't Always Harmful
---------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Ravindra Fernando of The Sunday Times Sri Lanka said
asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate
minerals.They are, thin fibrous crystals, with each visible fibre
composed of millions of microscopic "fibrils".

Asbestos mining existed more than 4,000 years ago, but large-
scale mining began at the end of the 19th century, when
manufacturers and builders began using asbestos for its desirable
physical properties: sound absorption, average tensile strength,
resistance to fire, heat, electricity and affordability.

Sri Lanka uses only the 'white chrysotile asbestos' in our
roofing sheet manufacture. All over the world, the only form of
asbestos in commercial use is chrysotile, which is not harmful or
hazardous to health. Hazardous blue and brown asbestos under poor
worker safety conditions in the 20th century led to the
understanding that asbestos dust inhalation from these forms can
cause serious health concerns. As a result brown and blue
asbestos varieties are banned globally.

However, chrysotile is used in over 140 countries -- including
the USA, Canada, Russia, India, China, Brazil, etc.

Over the last 50 years, world production of asbestos has not
declined. The world production in 1960 was around two million
tonnes, and still approximates to two million tonnes. However,
while world production in the early 1960s included all major
forms of the production of the hazardous amphibole varieties,
crocidolite and amosite has ceased since 1987 and 1992
respectively.

Today, millions of workers are involved in international
chrysotile asbestos industries. Taken together, these countries
represent more than two-thirds of the total world population. For
all parties of interest to be involved this means including and
respecting the views of workers, their organisations, governments
and industry.

Over the last three decades, there has been consistent published
evidence that chrysotile can be used safely and under conditions
that present no measurable risk to health. Many examples of safe
use have been studied, noted, recorded and replicated at the
factory, mine, regional and national level.

An investigation on 5,645 asbestos-cement manufacturing workers
by Weill and others showed no raised mortality resulting from
exposure for 20 years to chrysotile asbestos. The authors stated
that,"The demonstration that low cumulative and short-term
exposures did not produce a detectable excess risk for
respiratory malignancy may be of assistance in the development of
regulatory policy."

Another follow up study of 2,167 workers employed in a factory
manufacturing chrysotile asbestos cement products between 1941
and 1983 by Gardner and others showed no excess of lung cancers
or other asbestos-related excess deaths.

Recent toxicology studies demonstrate that chrysotile asbestos
has a relatively short bio-persistence and does not result in
pathological response even through 90 days of exposure.

This explains what science affirms, that "chrysotile, which is
rapidly attacked by the acid environment of the macrophage, falls
apart in the lung into short fibres and particles."

In the USA, the use of chrysotile has been attacked for many
years by anti-asbestos lobbyists and various activists (including
within the Environmental Protection Agency -- the EPA) wherein
they exerted great effort and enormous pressure to pass a full
and total legislative ban. That effort did not succeed.

On October 18, 1991 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeal was clear in its ruling when it refused this request based
on a meticulous examination of scientific evidence, facts and the
realities associated with risk -- not conspiracies and conflated
narratives.

The court struck down the crusade, and the EPA against the use of
asbestos in the USA. The court concluded that the EPA failed to
muster substantial evidence to support this abusive request.

In India, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition to ban the
white chrysotile asbestos in the country as there was no evidence
to prove that it was dangerous to human health. In January last
year petitioners to the Supreme Court in India tried to use the
same so-called scientific analysis to ban asbestos. The judges
asked to see the evidence to support their petition but nothing
was found. The petitioners were charged with perjury, and fined
with a short custodial sentence.

The amount of airborne chrysotile fibres, atmospheric conditions
etc. are the critical factors in determination of its health
risk. In Sri Lanka, the National Building Research Organisation
(NBRO) conducted an Air Quality Study on chrysotile fibre.

This study covered three different scenarios of chrysotile fibre
exposure at a:

1. Chrysotile-cement roofing sheets production factory
environment
2. Chrysotile-cement roofing sheets used house environment
3. Chrysotile-cement roofing sheets used construction or
demolition site environment

The study was done in two factories. The first factory was
located in Ratmalana. The second factory was located in Ja-ela.
The production technology is called "Hatschek technology". The
fibres are imported from Russia, Kazakhstan and Brazil.
For the household study, ten houses had been selected which used
chrysotile cement roofing sheets which should be used for the
roof, that should not be covered by a ceiling and they had
different ages of roofing.

This study clearly showed that the ambient fibre levels are much
below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard
of Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos in all three
studies, which is 0.1 fibre per cubic centimetre.

The household environment showed the lowest levels of ambient
fibres of chrysotile while construction sites showed the highest
values of that.

According to the information provided by the factory management
and the observations made at inspections, two factories are
maintaining high level of safety to control possible emission and
exposure to dangerous fibres.

All the fibre levels in this study were well below the threshold
level.

To ban a substance, product, or natural resource implies that
research, evaluation and serious study has taken place; and that
prior to making a decision, that the overwhelming body of
scientific evidence and policy options concludes there is no
other possible choice but a ban. Such a decision is generally
taken as a last resort, when other available policy options are
ineffective in the face of a verified and dramatic threat.

The latest scientific evidence published internationally strongly
supports the following views:

1. Chrysotile is significantly less hazardous than crocidolite
and amosite, which is not imported to Sri Lanka.

2. When properly controlled and used, chrysotile asbestos in its
modern day high-density applications does not present risks of
any significance to public or workers' health.

Today, a large number of countries use chrysotile fibres and
products containing chrysotile and it is their firm intention to
continue to do so in a safe and responsible manner.

Therefore, Sri Lanka should not ban the use of chrysotile
asbestos as there is no scientific evidence of health risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garage with Asbestos Roof Set Alight
-----------------------------------------------------
Rachael Dodd of Plymouth Herald reported that a fire started in
an apparent arson attack has severely damaged a garage in
Plympton.

Fire crews from Plympton and Crownhill were scrambled to the
incident at about 4am in Underwood Road after reports of a fire
in a garage.

When they arrived they found the building, which had an asbestos
roof, to be 'well alight'.

A spokesperson for Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue said:
"Crews confirmed the fire out and informed fire control of low
level asbestos involved in the incident due to the garage roof.

"The garage and contents were severely damaged, and the cause of
the fire was deemed deliberate


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Hopes Mngt to Reverse Asbestos Stigma
------------------------------------------------------------
John Blodgett of The Western News reported that in spring 2015,
soon after being sworn in as the newest Lincoln County
commissioner, Mark Peck of Libby, the county seat, drove the
roughly 300 miles to Missoula to meet with University of Montana
business school faculty and staff from PartnersCreative, a local
marketing agency. Peck had been referred there by Bill Johnston,
director of the school's Alumni Association and, like Peck, a
Libby native. (The two knew one another from when they were
Little League teammates in the late 1960s.)

Peck left Libby in 1978 for a career in the U.S. Air Force. When
he returned in 2010, he almost didn't recognize the place.

Once the site of a booming timber economy with as many as five
mills operating at one time, Libby lost its last one in 2002.
Market shifts and the "timber wars" of the 1990s that
significantly reduced logging on the National Forest lands that
comprise much of Lincoln County took their toll. On top of that,
Libby was suffering from being an asbestos Superfund site under
the Environmental Protection Agency and from the 1990 closure of
the mine that caused the environmental and public health
emergency, yet employed hundreds of people at a time for decades.
(Libby has another Superfund site, due to groundwater
contamination, that has drawn far less public attention.)

"The identity of Libby carries a negative connotation with it,"
Peck said in November. "It breaks my heart but it's a fact. The
majority of the population when they hear Libby, Montana, thinks
asbestos."

They also might think "depressed economy." Lincoln County's
unemployment rate in November 2017, not seasonally adjusted, was
8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's
the second highest of Montana's 56 counties and about twice the
state's rate.

Peck knew there was more to Libby, a story lost amidst the
environmental and economic headlines. Despite its setbacks, the
area could boast of a small-town pace, accessible wilderness and
deeply rooted residents who take pride in their community's
heritage. Peck's desire to help his community move beyond the
Superfund stigma and reestablish its economic and social
wellbeing caused him to run for the the county commission; his
search for solutions led him to that meeting at the University of
Montana.
Sitting in AuntT's Coffee Corner in downtown Libby in December,
Peck recalled that confab in Missoula. "I was just kind of
stumbling through explaining, 'I don't how to do this, I just
know we need some kind of a P.R. campaign to right the ship.'"

Sean Benton of PartnersCreative was first to respond.

"He said every small community in the western United States is
trying to do, at some level, what you're trying to do," Peck
recalled. "However, (he also said) what every other small
community in the western United States lacks, and what you have,
is a story."

That story, Benton told Peck, could be of a "phoenix (rising) out
of the asbestos" -- if residents could agree on where they saw
Libby five, 10, 20 years down the road.

A rebranding effort came out of that meeting, a public-private
partnership in which PartnersCreative would engage with UM
students and faculty to help residents of Libby, nearby Troy and
the rest of southern Lincoln County "refresh and reestablish
their identities -- honoring their heritage but firmly pointing
the communities toward the future," according to the project
proposal.

After briefing local economic and community development
organizations and agencies on the proposal, Peck presented it to
the Lincoln County Commission on Nov. 4, 2015. He told his fellow
commissioners, Greg Larson and Mike Cole, that "this is the first
step in a long time where Lincoln County is taking control of its
own destiny."

All three approved proceeding with the roughly $100,000 project.

Within a few weeks, a team of marketers, professors and students
traveled to the area. For two days, they surveyed 156 residents
of Libby and Troy in a combination of in-depth and on-the-street
interviews and focus-group discussions.

The next step, Benton told The Western News at the time, was to
analyze the surveyors' data to identify the commonly held
feelings and beliefs residents held about their communities.

"We need to pull the good parts to the surface," he said. "It
will help to overcome the negative issues and economic problems."

Those good parts would inform the rebranding campaign the
marketing team sought to create. What was crucial, Benton said at
the time, was that "this (rebranding effort) comes from the
people" and not from a team of marketers -- no matter how skilled
-- with no connection to the area.

Benton also pointed out that rebranding the Libby area to the
outside world would have an impact on the locals as well.

"A project like this can help instill pride in a community," he
said. "It helps people see what they have in a place like this."

The agency finished its analysis within four months and from it
began to craft what marketers call "brand standards and
guidelines," a document containing logos, messaging and other
items -- including instructions -- in support of a stigma-busting
storytelling campaign.

In the midst of the campaign's development, Peck and
PartnersCreative held a public meeting March 9, 2016 at Dome
Theater in downtown Libby to apprise people of the project's
status and its initial findings.

Addressing the more than 125 people that had gathered, Peck
described it as the first step "of a long-term movement to take
control of our own future."

Kevin Keohane, the project lead at PartnersCreative, outlined
some of the key elements of the branding the agency was
developing, which included highlighting the area's undiscovered
opportunities and the independent nature of the region's
residents.

The study had identified and described key audiences for branding
efforts -- including the "independent outdoor lover" and the
"opportunity seeker" -- as well as a positioning framework
labelled "The right kind of remote" that encapsulated messaging
themes such as "Pick your own path" and "Return on involvement."
The campaign's targets were entrepreneurs as well as visitors.
The following day, Peck told The Western News that the goal of
the meeting, held in advance of a completed plan, was "to bring
people together to start the dialogue." Yet in the days and weeks
that followed the community meeting the project outwardly lost
momentum -- something Peck takes responsibility for.

"I think I miscalculated," he said in December. "I did not stay
(involved) and engage (further) like I should have. One thing
I've learned in this position (as commissioner) is it's really
easy to switch tracks. Derailed is not the right word. Because
there's things that come up that you don't see coming . . . that
you have to deal with."

The project didn't come to a complete halt, however. Brand
standards and guidelines were completed in September 2016. A
month prior to that, a committee of local business people and
city and county officials that had coalesced in support of the
rebranding effort -- eventually taking the name Kootenai River
Valley -- was made a subcommittee of the Libby Area Chamber of
Commerce and tasked with updating the chamber's tired website,
seen as a crucial first-step in the rebranding effort.

Peck said he had long thought the rebranding plan's logical home
was the Libby Area Chamber of Commerce, explaining "I've never
seen it as government's role to build an economy." The chamber
was struggling at the time -- Peck cited dwindling membership, a
revolving board and other issues -- but he had hoped Kootenai
River Valley "would bring (it) strength."

Funded by the county and the Montana Office of Tourism and
Business Development, Kootenai River Valley tapped
PartnersCreative to develop the site in line with its rebranding
plan. After about nine months of work, the new site --
www.libbychamber.org -- launched July 28, 2017 and was "a huge
step forward," Peck said.

In addition to conveying the Libby area's attributes, Nate Bender
of PartnersCreative said the website is intended to offset "the
inaccurate or misleading information" about the area, especially
surrounding its Superfund site status, that exists elsewhere
online.

To do so, Keohane said they decided to "confront (the stigma)
head on."

"We decided early on not to brush the EPA under the rug," he
said. "We don't sugarcoat it."

One page of the website is therefore dedicated to an explanation
of the cleanup efforts and includes links to outside resources to
learn more.

Peck said that over the course of the website's development the
chamber had indeed transformed as he had hoped it would. He noted
an influx of new and energized board members ready and wanting to
help transform the community.

The Chamber disbanded the Kootenai River Valley committee
following the website's launch, according to Kim Peck, co-owner
of Glacier Insurance of Libby and a former committee member who
now sits on the Chamber board -- yet it plans to proceed with the
rebranding effort. Peck said the board will discuss next steps at
its February retreat.

"This won't be 'wholly owned' by the chamber because the idea of
the branding is for all groups to buy in and utilize this," she
said.

Noting that "now it's time to blow the dust off the
implementation" of the rebranding effort, Mark Peck added that
the community didn't have to follow it to the letter.

"But I think it's a great foundation to start driving where we
need to be," he said. "These (ideas) aren't earth shattering.
They're (the) kind of tried and true things that successful
communities have done in order to move themselves forward."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Selection for Talcum Powder Case Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that Middlesex County Superior Court in
New Jersey will be the scene of the next mesothelioma lawsuit
charging that Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder product was
contaminated with the deadly carcinogen asbestos, and was
responsible for consumers being sickened by the always fatal
asbestos-related disease. Jury selection has begun in the case
that will be heard by Judge Ana Viscomi and which is set to have
opening statements begin on January 16th. Judge Viscomi oversees
all of the asbestos related lawsuits being heard in the state.

Mesothelioma is a rare and fatal form of cancer that is
specifically caused by exposure to asbestos.Though it is
generally thought of as an occupational disease that afflicts
workers who were exposed on the job, there are thousands of
pending lawsuits accusing Johnson & Johnson and other companies
that sold talcum powder of being contaminated with asbestos.
Those companies have argued against scientific tests that confirm
the presence of asbestos in their product decades ago, and have
argued against their legal liability. Several lawsuits have
already been heard around the United States, with many juries
deciding in favor of the victims whose lives were tragically cut
short through their innocent use of the asbestos-contaminated
household product.'

Asbestos is a mineral that is frequently found in close proximity
to deposits of talc, and it is believed that this proximity is
what led to the contamination of the product. There have been
concerns about talc's safety for decades, and there is a
significant amount of evidence pointing to the companies having
been aware of its risks and choosing not to address the issue.
The talcum powder has already been named as the cause of ovarian
cancer in women who used it in the genital area, a use that the
talc companies actively promoted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Station to Close Due to Asbestos, Mold
------------------------------------------------------------
Noraida Negron of KGNS.tv reported that the Laredo Fire
Department is temporarily closing fire station number five.

After an assessment of the building was made two years ago, it
was detected that the fire station had mold and asbestos.

Fire station five, which is located on Bartlett was built in the
early 1950's and is expected to close for several months.

In the meantime, fire station number six, which is located on
Maher Avenue will be taking the load off the fire station as well
as its employees and fire stations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Bid to Audit Asbestos Trust Alive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi of Law 360 reported that a Delaware Chancery
judge declined to dispatch most of a lawsuit from a group of
insurance companies seeking to audit an asbestos personal injury
trust, from the bankruptcy of a U.S. unit of Koninklijke Philips
Electronics NV, ruling that he needs additional evidence to make
a decision.

In a 27-page opinion, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III wrote
that both the six insurance companies suing over their audit
rights and the entities targeted in the suit -- Philips
Electronics North America Corp., T.H. Agriculture, among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Looking for Asbestos After Condo Fires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Shown of HTO News reported that officials hired two
companies to search for asbestos in LaSalle's Woods condominiums
after a fire last October destroyed four units at the Eagle
Pointe condo village.

The Perry-Clear Creek Fire Department hired Crisis Cleaning, of
Solsberry, to investigate for asbestos in the building, which was
constructed in the mid-1970s. That was after the Environmental
Protection Agency issued federal regulations in 1973 on use of
the hazardous insulation material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at College Gave Former Lecturer Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Breen of Northern Echo reported that a former college
lecturer diagnosed with an incurable lung disease believes she
contracted it after being exposed to asbestos at a North-East
college in the late 1970s.

The legal team representing Margaret Curry, 73, from Durham,
believes she was most likely exposed to the deadly asbestos dust
and fibres during building work to remove asbestos sometime
between 1975 and 1980, in the classrooms she worked in as a food
science teacher at Darlington College of Technology.

Mrs Curry, whose maiden name was Callan, was diagnosed with the
fatal lung condition mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of
the lung -- in November.

The illness is caused by inhaling asbestos fibres and dust but it
takes decades for symptoms to appear following exposure.

And last night concerns were raised that thousands of students
and staff could have been exposed to the dangerous fibres during
the building work at the old college site, on Cleveland Avenue.
The institution moved a decade ago to its new-build site just off
Haughton Road.

Dennis McCabe, the college's representative for the Universities
and College Union, said: "I am shocked that a former member of
staff has been taken ill.

"There were potentially thousands of students there at the time,
and members of staff, and it's concerning to think how many
people could have been exposed and wouldn't know about it until
decades later."

However, solicitors from Irwin Mitchell said they "wanted to be
careful about scaremongering" -- as despite widespread exposure
to asbestos in many workplaces during the 1950s to 1970s, there
are still only about 2,500 cases a year.

The asbestos removal took place in classrooms and practical rooms
where Mrs Curry regularly worked.

Her staffroom -- where she spent most of her working day -- was
also next to some of the rooms being stripped of asbestos.

Mrs Curry, who has been married to her husband, Ian, for 36
years, said: "When the work was carried out at the college in
Darlington, the workmen wore overalls which I believe were
contaminated with asbestos dust.

"They passed through common areas in their overalls. The common
areas near the rooms they were working in were noticeably dustier
than usual."

Roger Maddocks, a specialised asbestos-related disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell, who is representing Mrs Curry, said:
"Mesothelioma causes a significant amount of pain and suffering
for those like Margaret.

"The risks of developing mesothelioma as a result of 'bystander
exposure' to asbestos dust have been public knowledge since the
1960s so to learn that people were exposed to the fibres much
later is devastating for the individuals and families who come to
us.

"Those who worked alongside Margaret may have important
information on the presence of asbestos at Darlington College as
well as details of safety measures, if any, taken to protect
staff from exposure to it.

"We hope former colleagues, students and others familiar with
Darlington College will come forward with this crucial
information so we can get justice for Margaret.

"We would also like to hear from any of the workmen involved in
removing the asbestos from the ceilings at the college."

Mrs Curry began to notice her symptoms, which include shortness
of breath and chest pains, in September.

She was diagnosed after undergoing tests at the University
Hospital of North Durham and the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle.

She said: "My diagnosis has come as a complete shock to me. To
learn it has most likely come from exposure to asbestos while I
was working has made me very angry. I just want answers for how I
was allowed to be exposed to asbestos."

Mrs Curry also worked at Bernard Gilpin Secondary School in
Houghton le Spring, from 1965 to 1968, and Elgin Senior High
School in Gateshead in 1971.

A Darlington College spokesman said last night: "Darlington
College has received no formal correspondence regarding this
matter allegedly involving the former Darlington College of
Technology site in Cleveland Avenue, which it left in 2006."

The National Education Union (NEU) -- an amalgamation of the
National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and
Lecturers -- is pressing Government to remove asbestos from all
schools and colleges. Joe Waddle, principal officer of the
northern region of the NEU, said: "While schools each have an
asbestos management plan, how do we really know it is being
reviewed properly? It is a grey area.

"There are so many schools still being used that were built in
the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Government has ruled out removing
asbestos due to cost but it is not going away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Alberici, Others for Illness
---------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Claire Record reported that a couple is
suing Alberici Constructors Inc., Dezurik Inc., Elliot Company
and other makers of asbestos products, alleging negligence.

August and Dolores Dudenhoeffer filed a complaint on Dec. 22 in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against the defendants
alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during August Dudenhoeffer's career from 1962 to 1977 he
was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants.
On Nov. 7, 2017, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-
induced disease. The disease allegedly was wrongfully caused.
The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were available, and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury; and seek damages of not
less than $25,000, with interest, costs and any other relief that
is appropriate. They are represented by Brian J. Cooke and
Karoline Carstens of Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC12009


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren School Closes 2 Rooms After Asbestos Find
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Doiron of WPRI reported that two classrooms at Hugh Cole
Elementary School are off limits after facilities found ceiling
tiles with asbestos on them, Bristol Warren Regional School
Superintendent Mario Andrade said.

An email was sent to parents informing them of the conditions,
saying that the music room/gym stage and Room 42 received water
damage due to burst pipes. While the area was being examined by
the insurance company and the Director of Maintenance and
Facilities at the school, the email says they found the asbestos
tiles under plywood in the music room and gym stage.

Andrade said the asbestos was encased in the tiles and was not
airborne.

"We have blocked off the area to all students and staff until we
can conduct an abatement," Andrade said. "A company will be
performing this service. Once the abatement is complete, we will
test the area to ensure that there are no health and safety
risks."

The area is currently blocked off in plastic containment and off
limits to students and adults in the building. Once the abatement
is complete, the air will be tested prior to students and faculty
returning to the affected spaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closes Woodside Library
-------------------------------------------------
Nathaly Pesantez of Sunnyside Post reported that the Woodside
Library has closed to undergo emergency floor repairs related to
exposed asbestos tiles at the site.

A spokesperson for the library system said the problems at the
Woodside branch, located at 54-22 Skillman Ave., have to do with
the carpet tiles on the floor curling up after undergoing a
cleaning recently. The curled carpet tiles, in turn, have exposed
asbestos tiles underneath them.

"The asbestos tiles must be removed before the flooring is
replaced," the Queens Library spokesperson said.

The Queens Library added that they are figuring out a time frame
and cost estimate for the repair work. An assessment will
determine when the library will reopen, they said.

The library system said they will be able to make a decision on
providing mobile library service once the time frame for the
floor replacement becomes clear.

The Woodside Library has been closed since Jan. 3, according to
e-mail notifications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hidden Talc Leads to $22M Award to Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that when 72-year-old Richard Booker
died of malignant mesothelioma, his family was not certain as to
where he had been exposed to asbestos, the carcinogenic material
that has been established as the sole cause of the disease.

Though he had worked for decades mixing paints, the companies
that made the materials that he worked with specifically
indicated that their products did not contain asbestos. But
careful investigation led to the discovery that both Vanderbilt
Minerals and Imerys Talc America purposely misled consumers about
the presence of the toxin in their products, and now a California
jury has responded by awarding Mr. Booker's family a total of $22
million for their negligence and liability in his wrongful death.

The jury handed down its verdict in the mesothelioma lawsuit
following six weeks of testimony. Much of what they heard led
them to believe that both companies had acted with "malice,
oppression and fraud." Richard Booker's family was provided $17.5
million in compensatory damages to address their economic and
emotional losses, as well as an additional $4.6 million
specifically assessed as punitive damages against Imerys.
Vanderbilt escaped a jury assessment of punitive damages by
settling with the Booker family before the next phase of the case
could proceed. The two companies were each seen as to blame, with
60% of liability assessed to Vanderbilt and 40% to Imerys.

According to evidence submitted during the trial, tissue samples
from Mr. Booker's lungs contained the same ingredients as the
asbestos-containing talc that the two companies manufactured. The
jury was told that the companies had gone beyond failing to
disclose the presence of asbestos, and that they had specifically
offered assurances that it was not there. Imerys documents showed
that they had reblended their talc to reduce the possibility that
asbestos would be detected.

Companies worked hard to continue using asbestos despite knowing
that it was causing malignant mesothelioma and other fatal
diseases. While they are being required to provide financial
compensation for their wrongdoing, the families of those effected
are paying the ultimate price. If your family has been impacted
in this way, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at
1-800-692-8608. We can provide you with invaluable information
and resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Confused on Claire's Cosmetics Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Matarese of ABC 15 reported that millions of "tween" girls
received gifts from Claire's over the holiday season. And many of
those gifts included makeup and lip gloss.

Cathy Augustine was among those buying gifts from Claire's.

She had just been to Claire's to return the makeup kit she bought
for her granddaughter.

"It really worried me, I just didn't want her to have anything to
do with it," Augustine said.

More than a dozen items recalled.

The reason for her concern: News that Claire's was recalling 17
different cosmetics items for possible asbestos contamination.
Asbestos has been linked to the deadly lung disease mesothelioma.

Products recalled and pulled from the shelves include lip gloss,
glitter and kids' makeup kits. See the full list on the Claire's
website.

"You protect your children and grandchildren. And when I read
that a mom had it tested and it had some kind of particles of
asbestos in it, I said no," she said.

The chain issued a major recall in the days after Christmas, when
a Rhode Island law firm claimed its tests found asbestos in
cosmetics sold at Claire's stores in nine different states.

But Augustine said she didn't hear about it for days, due to the
holiday, and says there was no alert in the store when she went
back.

"I came in and didn't see any signs, that's not to say there
weren't any but I didn't see any signs," she said.

So we checked the Claire's in the Kenwood Towne Center and did
not see any recall notices either, at the register or anywhere
else.

The chain is not advertising the recall, and unlike with
automobile recalls, it is not required to contact buyers (which
would be impossible anyway, since many of its purchases are made
with cash).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Damages for Failing to Warn
--------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Clair Record reported that a widow
is seeking damages after her husband died of lung cancer over
allegations that asbestos exposure caused him to develop cancer.

Sara Dicks, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Clyde Dicks Sr., deceased filed a complaint on Dec. 18,
2017, in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Foster
Wheeler Corp., The Gorman Rupp Co., Grinnel LLC, et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Clyde Dicks Sr.'s work as a laborer from 1962 to
2009, 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 Aug.
6, 2015, decedent first became aware that he developed lung
cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was
wrongfully caused. He died on Oct. 12, 2015, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Foster Wheeler Corp., The Gorman Rupp Co.,
Grinnel LLC, and others 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 seeks compensatory damages of no less than $50,000.
She is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates
PC in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG Settles Asbestos Storage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sandoval of Recycling Today reported that Massachusetts
Attorney General Maura Healey has announced that Dellbrook
Construction LLC and A-Best Abatement Inc. will pay $215,000 to
settle allegations regarding illegal asbestos work at development
projects in the Bay State.

The consent judgment settles a lawsuit filed by the AG's office,
which alleged that Dellbrook, located in Quincy, Massachusetts,
and A-Best, headquartered in Salem, New Hampshire, failed to
comply with the state's clean air law and regulations governing
the handling of asbestos at construction projects.

"Companies must ensure that any construction and demolition work
involving asbestos is done in a safe and legal way to protect
workers and the public," states Healey.

The AG's office alleges the defendants caused or allowed the
removal of asbestos-containing materials from the basement of a
five-story building in Lowell without sealing or properly
ventilating work areas or following other practices required by
law to minimize asbestos exposure.

The defendants also allegedly left asbestos visible in a basement
area and stored dry, broken asbestos-containing material in torn,
unsealed bags in a waste trailer in a parking lot behind the
building. The AG's lawsuit further alleges that Dellbrook
demolished and removed asbestos-containing materials from other
areas of the project without surveying those areas for asbestos
or notifying the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP).

According to the complaint, Dellbrook also polluted the air with
asbestos during construction at Harbor Place, a Haverhill,
Massachusetts, development project, by causing or allowing an
underground asbestos-containing pipe to be crushed into small,
dry pieces and scattered in open air around the property.
Dellbrook allegedly failed to follow any of the required work
practices or notify MassDEP before demolishing the pipe and
endangering health and safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Demanding Swift Asbestos Ban Introduced
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie A. Miller of Chemical Watch reported that Eight Democrat
senators have introduced legislation to ban asbestos and, they
say, "protect human health".

The proposed ban, named after Alan Reinstein, who died from
mesothelioma in 2006, would:

   * require the EPA to identify and assess all known exposures
to asbestos;

   * restrict its use, to eliminate human or environmental
exposure within 18 months; and

   * ban the manufacturing, processing, use and distribution of
commercial asbestos within a year.

"Delays in banning asbestos mean as many as 15,000 Americans die
each year," says Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of
the bill's co-sponsors. "Despite knowing the health risks for
decades, it is still used in a wide variety of construction
materials that the public unwittingly comes in contact with every
day."

However, it is unlikely the legislation will advance in the
Republican-controlled Congress.

The EPA is currently evaluating asbestos as one of the first ten
chemicals subject to review under the new TSCA. Agency
Administrator Scott Pruitt said in December that the agency may
reconsider its decision to exclude "legacy installed" building
materials from its risk evaluation.

The EPA's interpretation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act
amendments is that risk assessment should focus on "current and
prospective uses". The framework rules and scoping documents for
the first ten review substances, generally exclude "legacy uses"
of chemicals from consideration. Instead they focus on current
and prospective applications.

In comments on the scoping documents, asbestos abatement
professionals argue "the most prevalent source of asbestos
exposure to the general public in the US" is from existing,
deteriorating building materials containing the substance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Recalls 9 Makeup Products
---------------------------------------------------
Dev Gowda of Public Health Advocate reports that when a parent
buys something for their child, they shouldn't have to worry
about whether that product contains harmful chemicals. Parents
assume items on store shelves are safe, and expect that we
already have regulations in place to protect kids.

But at the start of 2018, national children's retailer Claire's
issued a recall of nine makeup products after testing by a law
firm found they may contain cancer-causing asbestos fibers.
Claire's has since issued a notice that their own testing has
found their products to be asbestos-free.

Asbestos is not used commercially in makeup, but can be found as
a contaminant in talc, a common ingredient in cosmetics. Talc is
often a major ingredient in sparkly, shimmery and powdery makeup.
The laboratory that performed the tests for the law firm
indicated that it has found evidence that products manufactured
with talc in China often contains asbestos as a contaminant.
Inhaling or ingesting any form of asbestos can lead to serious
health conditions, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The potential for asbestos in Claire's children's cosmetic
products raises questions about how these products are regulated.

Currently, there is no national agency charged with testing kids'
makeup for asbestos -- despite its prevalence in talc, a common
ingredient. While the Food & Drug Administration does
occasionally test makeup for chemicals like lead and mercury, it
does not do so regularly. That means that the only way we know
whether there are hazardous materials in these products is after
they are tested independently--and so many products are never
tested.
We can and must do better. We need sensible regulations for
cosmetics, and for children's products. Parents should never have
to wonder whether or not asbestos is in kids' makeup, and
consumers shouldn't wonder if hazardous substances are lurking in
their cosmetics.

What's more: there has been no meaningful legislation regulating
cosmetics since 1938. While the federal government could step in
and require testing for makeup, states can also pass legislation
requiring companies to disclose harmful ingredients in makeup to
consumers.

New York already requires companies to disclose ingredients in
household cleaning products, and California requires companies
who sell commercial cleaning products to disclose ingredients.

Parents can take the following precautions to protect kids from
potential asbestos contamination in makeup:

   1. Restrict kids' access to makeup, particularly sparkly and
powdery makeup;

   2. Check ingredient labels on makeup for talc and do not allow
kids to access talc-containing makeup;

   3. Keep kids from inhaling or ingesting makeup (don't let them
chew on makeup or apply it near their noses)

And then, you can take action by calling on Congress to do better
-- for our children and for our public health, here.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Named in Girard Widow Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a
widow alleges her late husband's lung cancer death was caused by
asbestos exposure.

Tarma Girard, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of William Girard, deceased filed a complaint on Dec. 21,
2017, in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Albany
International Corp., Backmer Pump Co., Certain-Teed Corp.
alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during plaintiff's decedent William Girard's life, 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 May 17, 2016, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-
induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. He
died on Aug. 30, 2017, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Albany International Corp., Backmer Pump Co.,
Certain-Teed Corp., and others responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew that it was toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious to human health and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with
or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and economic damages of more
than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian
& Associates PC in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Audit Says Most Australian Schools Has Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Kember of Asbestos.com reported that for millions of
Australian parents, the biggest concern when sending their
children off to school is what to pack in their lunchbox.

This is hardly surprising, given their perception that schools
are a safe place for children.

Unfortunately, this could not be further from the truth. Many
children are at risk of exposure to asbestos in aging school
buildings.

A recent audit of Australian schools revealed most contain some
form of asbestos. In the southeastern state of Victoria alone,
only 39 of the 1,440 state schools audited -- or 3 percent --
passed the test.

Hundreds of schools in North South Wales contain asbestos, found
mainly in fibrous asbestos roofing sheets, roof tiles, boiler
flues and external window panels.

All schools containing asbestos are ticking time bombs. Any
damage caused by aging, the elements or human intervention can
release deadly asbestos fibers. Inhaling or swallowing these
fibers can result in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
diseases many years after the initial exposure.

Dangers of Asbestos to Children

Prior to a nationwide ban on asbestos building products in the
late 1980s, the toxic mineral was used in the construction of 1
in 3 Australian buildings.

Across the country, thousands of these asbestos-containing
buildings are still standing, including a large number of
schools.

According to the United Kingdom's Committee on Carcinogenicity,
children are far more vulnerable to asbestos exposure compared to
adults.

Children are readily exposed to areas where asbestos is commonly
found in schools such as damaged floor tiles, wall boards,
drywall, air conditioning and chipped paint. Because a child's
lungs are still developing, children breathe more rapidly, making
them an easy target for a number of lung diseases caused by
asbestos.

Additionally, a child's playfulness or behavior can damage
asbestos-containing materials -- kicking or throwing balls
against classroom walls and ceilings, slamming doors, hitting
tacks or nails into walls as part of displays.

In 2015, independent tests commissioned by the Environmental
Working Group Action Fund discovered asbestos-contaminated talc
in crayons and children's toys.

Asbestos Management Plans in Australia

State governments in Australia require schools to have an
asbestos management plan (AMP) in accordance with the federal
Work, Health and Safety Act 2011. All of the plans have the same
goal: To minimize risk of asbestos exposure to students, teachers
and others who may visit the properties.

Accordingly, all areas found to be contaminated with asbestos
must be labeled and fenced off to inhibit disturbance. Once
asbestos is detected, all children must be prohibited from
entering the area, which must then be sealed to prevent asbestos
fibers from escaping into the atmosphere.

The AMP must be maintained, updated and accessible to parents,
teachers and other faculty members. Any procedure involving
asbestos must be undertaken by abatement professionals, who are
highly trained in the safe removal of asbestos.

In the U.S., the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
requires local educational agencies to inspect schools for
asbestos-containing materials, prepare an AMP and perform
necessary response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards.

However, compliance of the legislation is low, and asbestos
continues to be an issue in U.S. schools.

Victoria Leads Way to Making Australian Schools Safe

The Victorian Government has initiated an asbestos removal plan
and vowed to rid schools of asbestos by 2020.

The plan came after a statewide audit in March 2016 -- the
largest in the state's history -- revealed the extent of asbestos
contamination in Victorian schools. Of the 1,712 government
schools involved in the audit, 497 were found to contain high-
risk asbestos.

The government has committed $100 million to an asbestos removal
plan, incorporating the prompt replacement of 30 older buildings
containing asbestos with permanent modular buildings.

Another $42 million, provided by the 2015-16 State Budget, was
used to extend the program to the next phase, involving replacing
200 of 780 relocatable classrooms contaminated with high amounts
of asbestos.

The following year, the government provided an additional $10
million to demolish and replace 80 relocatable classrooms with
high asbestos contamination and an additional $18 million to
remove asbestos from permanent buildings and school grounds.

With all high-risk asbestos now removed, the Victorian Government
is concentrating on the removal of other materials which may pose
a health risk to students and teachers in the future. Currently,
119 schools are scheduled to be cleared of asbestos by June 30,
2018.

In accordance with Victoria's Occupational Health and Safety
agenda, asbestos management within the schools is governed by a
strict set of legislative and compliance requirements.

To ensure all Victorian schools are safe, school principals are
provided with a School Asbestos Management Plan and are held
responsible for the safe management of asbestos in their school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Local Church From Asbestos Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lacie Pierson of Charleston Gazette-Mail reported that a Kanawha
Circuit Judge has dismissed a local church in an asbestos lawsuit
filed by four Nitro Police officers.

Four officers sued King's Way Christian Church and the City of
Nitro in August 2016, claiming they were exposed to asbestos in a
building owned by the church and leased by the city as offices
for police.

Kanawha Circuit Judge Charles King approved a motion to dismiss
all of the claims against the church, leaving the city of Nitro
as the only defendant in the case.

King dismissed the claims without prejudice, so if any of the
officers experience health problems related to the asbestos in
the future, they can file new claims against the church in civil
court.

King also ruled to remove an expert witness, a pulmonologist,
from the case.

Officers Timothy Jarrell, Richard Foster, Ronald Clay and Mikel
Clay filed lawsuits against the church and the city claiming they
were fearful of potential health problems after they were exposed
to asbestos in the building. The officers said the city failed to
remove the asbestos for at least eight years, despite knowing it
was in the building.

The men also claimed city officials retaliated against them when
they filed complaints about asbestos prior to their lawsuits.

Each officer said the rate at which they accrue vacation has been
slowed in retaliation for their complaints about the asbestos.
They also said they have been subjected to a hostile work
environment.

Additionally, Jarrell was placed on administrative leave in June
2016.

In December, a jury found Jarrell not guilty of misdemeanor
battery and false swearing in relation to a May 2016 arrest.

Jarrell's attorney characterized the criminal charges as a "witch
hunt" by Nitro officials for his complaints about the asbestos
and because Jarrell reported another Nitro police officer for
stealing $4,000 earlier that year.

At the time the asbestos lawsuits were filed, none of the men had
been diagnosed with any health problems associated with asbestos.

The officers' attorney Scott Kaminski said one of the officers
recently was diagnosed with emphysema. The church's attorney,
Mark Troy, said there was no proof that the officer's diagnosis
was a direct result of asbestos exposure.

Kaminski said the men were seeking further medical evaluations to
set a baseline physical among the men.

The officers are seeking periodic medical testing to monitor for
early detection of any asbestos-related illnesses.

The officers also seek damages to compensate them for lost wages,
emotional distress and medical monitoring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Risk After Fire on Abandoned School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Armstrong of Central Telegraph reported that a fire at an
abandoned school in Brisbane's south prompted police to warn
residents to stay indoors due to a risk of asbestos exposure.

Police officers door knocked the area around the old Oxley State
High School site on Seventeen Mile Rocks Rd, Oxley after a fire
broke out just before 3.30pm.

Residents were warned to close windows and stay inside as the old
buildings likely contained asbestos which could have been
transferred to the air during the fire.

Fire crews contained the blaze and no one was injured.

Local mother-of-two Cerae Mitchell said she decided to evacuate
her children from the area after smelling the smoke.

"There was a real burning plastic smell and a big dark black
cloud of smoke.

"I don't have any airconditioning so we couldn't shut ourselves
indoors so I decide to take the kids and leave for the
afternoon," she said.

Ms Mitchell said there had been concern that the grounds of a
nearby kindergarten would be contaminated but luckily it was
located upwind from the fire.

"The lady who runs the kindy has been advised it will be okay,"
she said.

Ms Mitchell said video of a group of young people allegedly
starting a small fire near the buildings had been posted to a
local Oxley community page and handed over to police.

"There's a video of some people apparently lighting a small fire
and putting a chair on the flames," she said.

There has been ongoing debate about what the site should now be
used for, with the buildings now derelict.

"They're only really used by graffiti artists," Ms Mitchell said

"I think everyone in the area would like to see something done to
the space. I would love it to be a park," she said.

Police have declared the building a crime scene and are treating
the fire as suspicious.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposed as Building Cladding Came Away
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the disused BHS building and its mosaic
are part of a key redevelopment of the area.

"Some of the cladding has started to come away and asbestos is
being exposed", said a Hull City Council statement.
The hoarding was erected to "ensure public safety", said the
council.

It is working with Emmaus, a charity for the homeless, to help
rough sleepers who had been camping recently under the building's
canopy.

The charity was providing support and accommodation, said the
council.

The council is purchasing the site to be part of the planned
Albion Square development and the hoarding was put up with the
agreement of the current owners, it said.

The shop building is well-known for the large Three Ships mosaic
by artist Alan Boyson.

It comprises almost one million pieces of Italian glass on a 66ft
by 64ft (20m x 19.5m) concrete screen.

The work was commissioned by the Co-Op, which owned the building
in 1963.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Cancer From Husband's Overalls
----------------------------------------------------------
David Huntley of Gazatte reported that Joan Reed was diagnosed
with Mesothelioma. Her husband worked for Teesside companies from
around 1985 up until the early 1990s.

A widow who has terminal cancer believes she contracted the
disease through exposure to her husband's asbestos covered
overalls.

Joan Reed was diagnosed with Mesothelioma, a type of cancer that
affects the lining of the lungs and chest wall, and believes it
is a result of washing her husband's boiler suit and hugging him
every day.

Ms Reed, 72, from Middlesbrough, is now hoping to prove that she
has developed the terminal cancer through the exposure of
asbestos from her husband, Robert, who worked as a shotblaster
for Rigblast Holding Ltd.

Robert worked for Tees Marine Shotblasting Company Limited, which
later became Rigblast Holding Limited, from around 1985 up until
the early 1990s and would wear a blue boiler suit for work.

Once home, Joan would then wash it.

Ex-soldier's 'short fuse' was lit before he threw a kettle of
scalding water over former friend

Robert would wear the boiler suit for a few days until it became
too dirty and Joan would pick up the suit and fold it on a chair
in their bedroom.

Robert would even wear the boiler suit while he worked in the
garden as well as when he was sitting and having his tea after a
days work.

Joan would always give her husband a kiss and a hug every morning
before he left for work and again when he came home -- all while
he was wearing his overalls.

Robert died in April 2009 from lung cancer and a brain tumour,
and Joan instructed asbestos related disease lawyers at Beecham
Peacock after she herself became diagnosed with Mesothelioma.

She said: "My husband is unfortunately no longer here to give
witness evidence about his exposure to asbestos whilst working at
Tees Marine Shotblasting and Rigblast.

"I am putting out an urgent appeal for anyone who worked with
Robert or for these companies, between 1985 to 1992, to get in
contact with my solicitors, so that we can try to get justice."

Body of a man was found in abandoned van in Middlesbrough, police
confirm

Joan has undergone six cycles of chemotherapy and is now
extremely ill and desperately wants to see justice during her
lifetime.

Joan is certain that the only exposure to asbestos that she has
had is through washing her husband's work clothing.

Mesothelioma is an extremely aggressive form of terminal cancer
caused by asbestos exposure decades before symptoms develop.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: P.R. Families Reminded of 2nd-Hand Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the St. Louis Record published a story about a
complaint that was filed at the St. Louis Circuit Court. The
complaint alleges several companies "failed to warn of the
dangerous effects of inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing
asbestos."

One of the plaintiffs was recently diagnosed with mesothelioma
and claims that between the early 1950s and 1990, when both of
his parents worked at the companies listed in the legal
complaint, he was exposed to secondhand asbestos from his parents
bringing it into their home when they came home from work. Cases
like this have tragically occurred all across the United States,
including here in Puerto Rico.

The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) states
that significant exposure to any type of asbestos will increase
the risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. The ATSDR
also reports that asbestos-related disease has been diagnosed in
not just workers that dealt with asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials, but also with family members. The National Cancer
Institute states that this risk is thought to result from
exposure to asbestos fibers brought into the home on the shoes,
clothing, skin and hair of workers. This exposure to family
members is often referred to as secondhand, secondary or take-
home asbestos exposure.

"Asbestos has many unique properties which is why it was used for
decades in thousands of commercial products and building
materials," said Harry Pena, President of Zimmetry Environmental.
"Unfortunately, these same asbestos-containing materials can also
release fibers into the air when they are disturbed or as they
age and become friable. They are still a major issue when homes,
schools and institutions containing asbestos are renovated or
demolished if they are not handled properly."




                            *********


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  * * *