CAR_Public/180323.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, March 23, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 60



                            Headlines


2BEANS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
ABM INDUSTRIES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Castro" Suit
AGWAY ENERGY: Faces "Brown" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
ALLERGAN INC: FWK Holdings Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.Y.
ALLSTATE CORP: Must Answer Suit on Lowered Underwriting Standards

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in "Etter"
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Odaise Appeals Ruling in "Etter" to 9th Cir.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Loses Counterclaim in "Vecchia" TCPA Suit
AMERICAN CASINO: "Herrera" Sues Over Illegal Internet Tax
AMERICAN GIRL BRANDS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York

AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Cox" Suit in S.D. West Virginia
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Phillips"
ARVEST BANK: Faces "Chandler" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Divine" Suit in D. New Jersey
ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: "Spiegel" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir.

ATRIUM HEALTH: Target of New Class Action Lawsuit
AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "Mcbride" Suit in E.D. Virginia
AUTOZONE INC: "Hernandez" Suit Brought Before 2nd Cir.
AVANT GARDNER: Faces "Osorno" Suit in E.D. New York
BBC WORLDWIDE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York

BELLA BUS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
BELLICUM PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action
BEN'S KOSHER: Faces "Avelar" Suit in E.D. New York
BORROWERSFIRST INC: "Chavez" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
CALLE 8 LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit S.D. New York

CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Dress" Suit in E.D. Virginia
CENERGY INT'L: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Doiron" FLSA Suit
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: Dismissal of Forensic Exams Suit Reversed
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
CIVITAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York

COINBASE: CA Claiming Insiders Benefited from Bitcoin Cash Launch
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Carr" Suit in E.D. New York
CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Time to Respond to "Curley" Extended
DIRECT ENERGY: "Gomez" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cunniff" Suit in N.D. Georgia

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in N.D. Georgia
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Consumers Hit Inflated Gas, Electricity Prices
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Gordon" Suit in E.D. New York
FREEDOM MORTAGE: Faces "Weinshank" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
GALLITOS MEXICAN: Faces "Lucero" Suit in E.D. New York

GAY AND LESBIAN: Lawyers Team for Class Suit Over Canceled Event
GE SAVINGS PLAN: Fund Mismanagement Suit Transferred to Mass.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Manning" Suit in S.D. Florida
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Mock Files Suit v. County Sheriff, et al.
GOOGLE: Former Employee Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Kuchenmeister Appeals Order to 11th Cir.
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Delson" Suit in C.D. California
HITACHI CHEMICAL: $66MM Class Action Antitrust Case Settlement
HONEYWELL INT'L: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Pacheco" Suit
IDAHO: Court OKs Amendments to Settlement in Suit vs. DHW

INSMED INC: Court Dismisses "Hoey" Drug Securities Fraud Suit
JANSEN PHARMA: Pharma Cos. Sued Over Newborns' Opioid Addiction
JOSEPH K. JONES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winters" Suit
KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
LIVE NATION: CA Launches Demanding Route 91 Harvest Refunds

LJM FUNDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court OKs $2.95MM Attorney's Fees in "Nozzi"
MARYVILLE UNIVERSITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
MASTIC HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Pagliaroni" Suit
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Class Action Trial Ends in Defense Verdict

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Maestri" Suit in N.D. Georgia
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Jamnadas" Suit in E.D. New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Moore" Suit in E.D. New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. New York
MIMEDX GROUP: Bragar Eagel & Squire Files Class Action

MIMEDX GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MIRAMED REVENUE: "Costin" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Kawelo" Suit in D. Hawaii
NEW PRIME: Truckers' Class Action Moves to Supreme Court

NISSAN NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Sunroof Suit
NYP HOLDINGS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
OHR PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Firm Files Class Action
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Faces "S.M." Suit in N.D. California
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: US Court Preliminarily OKs Terms Settlement

PLANET SMOOTHIE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
POLITICO LLC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Manfredi" Suit in E.D. New York
QUANTUM CORP: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
RICARDO AND SUSAN GARCIA: "Hill" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime

RICK BUTLER: Sued Over Alleged Sexual Abuse Cover-up
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
SAFEGUARDCASUALTY: "Henderson" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SANIMAX USA: Faces "Keech" Suit in D. Minnesota

SCANA CORP: Judge Rules Electric Customers' Lawsuits Can Proceed
SETERUS INC: Court Dismisses "Campbell" FCCPA Suit
SIRIUS XM: Andrews Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
SMCP USA: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Judge Orders Class-Action to Proceed

STAAR SURGICAL: Class Action Suit Settled for $7-Mil.
SUMMIT CREDIT: Faces "Domann" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
SUPER MICRO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SYSTEMATIC NATIONAL: "Aparicio" Hits Autodialed Collection Calls
TASTE OF NATURE: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in C.D. California

TE CONNECTIVITY: Appeals Ruling in "Wilson" Suit to Ninth Circuit
TEXAS: Faces "Steward" Suit in District of Columbia
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Pavetic" Suit in N.D. Ohio
TRAVELPORT LP: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Williamson" Suit
TROLLBEADS UNITED: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York

TRUSTCO BANK: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Dulberg" Suit in N.D. California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Mejia"

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ontario Judge Stays $400MM Class Action
ULTA BEAUTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Veterans with PTSD Sue Over Biased Discharges
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Faces "Gor" Suit in E.D. New York
US BANK: Court Dismisses "Skibbe" FDCPA Suit

VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D. New York
WARREN COUNTY, OH: Adoptive Families File Suit in S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline


                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,234 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Set for April 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poage" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Rabovsky" Lawsuit in 4Q2017

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 54,000 Open Claims at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Lawsuits v. Global Power Unit Still Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jail Officials Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Entitled to Setoff in "Oakes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nexus Corp. Not Liable in "Amling" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Plenco Dismissed in "Lineberger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Asbestos Claims in "Davis" Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Could Affect Asbestos Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Objects to Committee Counsel Retention
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Names Copes Vulcan, et al., in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Alert After Low Level Exposure Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant Atty Hails Landmark Asbestos Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Courtroom Site of New Talc Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court of Appeals Flips Ruling in "Bussey"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurich Reaches Landmark Cancer Treatments Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Firm Must Face Insurers' Payback Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Firm Settles Appeal of $1.1MM Sanction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Can't Toss Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer on Hook for $43MM in Libby Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Pleads Guilty of Illegal Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Blames Paper Mill for Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Arconic for Dad's Lung Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Shuts Down Hoddle Street
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Sydney Airport
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Legal Charges Filed on Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Asbestos Drama Lead to Ward Crackdown
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Overseeing Asbestos Cases Reassigned

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Baden Contractor Guilty of Asbestos Offense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Passes Company-Friendly Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Burning Asbestos Debris
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Union Boss to Retire Early





                            *********


2BEANS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2Beans, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. 2Beans, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01502
(E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

2beans, Inc. operates as a coffee outlet. It offers coffee
drinks, such as specialty espressos and salted caramel lattes;
and bakery products, including pastries, chocolates, tarts,
eclairs, muffins, cupcakes, peanut butter banana honey, and
bagels. 2beans, Inc. was incorporated in 2011 and is based in New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Castro" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ABM Industries, Inc., ABM Onsite Services - West,
Inc., ABM Services Inc., ABM Janitorial Services - Northern
California Inc., and ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit captioned Marley
Castro, et al. v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
03026-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 5, 2018, the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order on Jan. 26,
2018, certifying these classes:

   (1) EPAY Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
   the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner, who used a personal cell phone to
   punch in and out of the EPAY system and who (a) worked at an
   ABM facility which did not contain biometric clock, and were
   (b) not offered an ABM-provided cell phone during the period
   beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of notice to
   the Class Members that a class has been certified in this
   action";

   (2) Suspicious Incidents Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM
   in the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner who used a personal cell phone to
   report unusual or suspicious circumstances to supervisors and
   were not offered an (a) ABM-provided cell phones or (b) two-
   way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the
   filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through
   the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been
   certified in this action; and

   (3) Supervisor Communications Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
   the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner who used a personal cell phone to
   respond to communications from supervisors and were not
   offered an (a) ABM-provided cell phones or (b) two-way radio
   during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of
   the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of
   notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in
   this action."

The appellate case is captioned as Marley Castro, et al. v. ABM
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80019, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents MARLEY CASTRO and LUCIA MARMOLEJO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 13th Street, 8th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-4400
          Facsimile: (510) 444-4410
          E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com

               - and -

          Catha Worthman, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          383 4th Street, Suite 201
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: catha@feinbergjackson.com

Defendants-Petitioners ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ABM ONSITE SERVICES
- WEST, INC., ABM SERVICES INC., ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES -
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INC. and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., are
represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                  ksmith@gibsondunn.com


AGWAY ENERGY: Faces "Brown" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agway Energy
Services, LLC. The case is styled as James Brown, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Agway Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22:18-cv-00321-
NBF (W.D. Penn., March 13, 2018).

Agway Energy Services, LLC provides natural gas and electricity
to residential and commercial customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
   Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
   707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 281-7229
   Fax: (412) 281-4229
   Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: FWK Holdings Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned FWK Holdings, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. Allergan Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00747, (E.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
February 6, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-00677.

FWK brings this class action for claims under federal and state
antitrust laws to recover damages and obtain injunctive and
equitable relief for the substantial injuries it and others
similarly situated have sustained against Defendants, arising
from their conspiracy to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices
of prescription cyclosporine emulsion.

Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 50-
790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold under the
Restasis trademark.

FWK Holdings, L.L.C. is an Illinois limited liability company
located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois and is the assignee of antitrust
claims possessed by Frank W. Kerr Company and brings this action
as successor-in-interest to Kerr's claims arising from its
purchase of pravastatin.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Schwartz, Esq.
      850 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: aschwartz@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Matthew Powers McCahill, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      John D. Radice, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Tel: (646) 245-8502
      Fax: (609) 385-0745
      Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Hannah Brennan, Esq.
      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             hannahb@hbsslaw.com
             kristenj@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
      55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 224-1500
      Fax: (312) 224-1510
      E-mail: Jvanek@vaneklaw.com

              - and -

      Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III, Esq.
      CAPSHAW DERIEUX LLP
      114 E Commerce Avenue
      Gladewater, TX 75647
      Tel: (903) 233-4826
      Fax: (903) 236-8787
      Email: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com

Allergan, Inc. is represented by:

      Michael Sean Royall, Esq.
      Jason Cimma McKenney, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP - DALLAS
      2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 698-3256
      Fax: (214) 571-2900
      Email: SRoyall@gibsondunn.com
             jmckenney@gibsondunn.com

             - and -

      Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      1507 Bill Owens Parkway
      Longview, TX 75604
      Tel: (903) 757-6400
      Fax: (903) 757-2323
      Email: wh@wsfirm.com

             - and -

      Richard Hale Cunningham, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1801 California Street, Suite 4200
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 298-5752
      Fax: (303) 313-2833
      Email: rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Must Answer Suit on Lowered Underwriting Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge in Chicago has cleared a group of investors to
continue their class action against insurer Allstate for
allegedly hurting the company's value by allegedly lowering
underwriting standards to add higher-risk customers.

In an opinion issued Feb. 27, U.S. District Judge Robert W.
Gettleman said Carpenters Trust Pension Fund for Northern
California and Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern
California met the threshold to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act in their complaint against The
Allstate Corporation, as well as former Allstate CEO Thomas
Wilson and his successor, Matthew Winter.

The investors accused all three parties of violating the
Securities Exchange Act, and also seek to hold the executives
personally liable. They say Allstate skirted rules starting in
2013 by secretly reducing underwriting standards so as to qualify
customers who otherwise would have been deemed too risky. They
say the gambit led to a spike in claims frequency starting in
October 2014, ultimately hurting the company's bottom line and
investment value. The class would include anyone who bought
Allstate common stock between Oct. 29, 2014, and Aug. 3, 2015.

The complaint also accuses Allstate of making false statements to
cloud the real reason for the claim increase. In his opinion,
Gettleman explained the plaintiffs' position that "these
misstatements convinced initially skeptical securities analysts
to view Allstate's financial outlook favorably despite the fact
that its competitors were not experiencing similar increases in
auto insurance claims frequency."

The Aug. 3 date coincides with an Allstate release detailing
second-quarter financial results, leading to shares tumbling 10
percent that day. The plaintiffs said Winter that day linked the
underwriting standards to the claims spike and, during an
earnings call the next day, admitted the financial hit was
expected. They also raised concerns about Wilson liquidating $33
million in Allstate stock -- 85 percent of his direct holdings --
in November 2014, and another $6.2 million in May 2015.

In arguing for dismissal, Allstate said the complaint cited
company statements that were opinions, not determinable facts.
Gettleman disagreed, noting the investors provided "numerous
allegedly misleading factual statements," such as earnings call
remarks, and press releases in which officials blamed the claims
uptick on "external factors such as adverse weather."

Allstate said reasonable investors would have inferred the
company's conclusions were somewhat uncertain and therefore not
misleading, but Gettleman sided with plaintiffs' contention that
even if that were the case, that doesn't address the allegations
that Allstate knew claims went up -- in part, at least -- because
of relaxed underwriting standards.

The company said Wilson's stock sales were typical estate
planning and investment diversification moves, but Gettleman said
the allegation "they are indicative of insider selling is both
cogent and equally compelling, particularly in light of the other
allegations in the complaint." He also agreed that allegations
"Winter's statements attributing the increase in claims frequency
to external factors were made with an intent to deceive
investors" are as plausible as Allstate's counterargument.

Gettleman also rejected Allstate's claim that because it
partially disclosed the underwriting expansion in May 2015, the
investors couldn't say the company's conduct directly caused
shares to lose value. He explained they only needed to allege
suffering economic loss when the stock price fell after the truth
became known in the marketplace, and said the single-day drop of
more than 10 percent is sufficient evidence.

With the motion to dismiss denied on all counts, the judge
directed Allstate to answer the complaint no later than March 27.
A status hearing is set for April 11.

The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Thomas
A. Dubbs, Esq. -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Christopher D. Barraza,
Esq. -- cbarraza@labaton.com -- and Thomas G. Hoffman Jr., Esq. -
-  thoffman@labaton.com --of the firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP, of
New York, and Louis C. Ludwig, of Pomerantz LLP, of Chicago.

Allstate is defended by attorneys Raja S. Gaddipati, Esq. and
John J Clarke Jr., Esq. -- john.clarke@dlapiper.com -- of the
firm of DLA Piper LLP (US), with offices Chicago and New York.
[GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in "Etter"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate Indemnity Company,
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate North
Brook Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company of California
and Louis Odaise filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled John Etter v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-00184-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan 26, 2018, Judge
William Alsup granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to certify two separate classes.

Etter sought to certify two classes pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     a. Class A: All persons or entities successfully sent a
        facsimile on or about May 25, 2015, stating, DO YOU KNOW
         THAT YOU CAN SAVE UP TO 40-60% ON COMMERCIAL AUTO
         INSURANCE?, To get your free quote, please complete the
         form below and fax to: (510) 234-0518, and You can
         unsubscribe at any time.  Please fax your removal
         request to (877) 256-2022.

     b. Class B: All persons or entities successfully sent a
        facsimile on or about Oct. 11, 2016, stating, potentially
        save 40-60% off your Commercial auto insurance, fill out
        the form below and FAX YOUR REQUEST TO: 510-234-0518, TEL
        510-234-0516, OR EMAIL: A026315@ALLSTATE.COM, and If you
        wish to be removed from our Fax list, please call
        888-828-3086.

Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part Etter's motion for
class certification.  He granted certification of the proposed
Class B because the class satisfies the requirements of Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(3) but denied Etter's motion to certify proposed
Class A because he lacks standing.

The appellate case is captioned as John Etter v. Allstate
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 18-80015, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JOHN C. ETTER, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., ALLSTATE INDEMNITY
COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
NORTH BROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA and LOUIS ODAISE are represented by:

          Kirsten F. Gallacher, Esq.
          Meryl C. Maneker, Esq.
          Vickie Turner, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          550 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          E-mail: KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Odaise Appeals Ruling in "Etter" to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Louis Odaise filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled JOHN C. ETTER, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00184-WHA, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 26, 2018, Judge
William Alsup granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to certify two separate classes.

This is a putative class action by the John Etter against
Allstate, and Louis Odiase, an Allstate insurance agent.  Etter
asserts a single claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, based on allegations that defendants sent a single
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to Etter on Oct. 11, 2016,
without his prior invitation or permission and without the
legally-required opt-out notice language.

Louis Odiase works as an independent contractor for Allstate and
has sent fax advertisements since 2003 using fax broadcasters --
first, 127 High Street, and later WestFax.  Over the years, they
developed a "database" or "target list" of potential customers
who had supposedly consented to receive advertisements by fax.
The case concerns two specific mass fax broadcasts in two
separate years -- 2015 and 2016.

The appellate case is captioned as John Etter v. Louis Odaise, et
al., Case No. 18-80017, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JOHN C. ETTER, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

Defendant-Petitioner LOUIS ODAISE is represented by:

          Elizabeth Williams, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH, & VOLUCK, LLP
          425 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2414
          Telephone: (415) 402-0059
          E-mail: ewilliams@kdvlaw.com

Defendants ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,
ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTH
BROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA are represented by:

          Kirsten F. Gallacher, Esq.
          Meryl C. Maneker, Esq.
          Vickie Turner, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          550 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          E-mail: KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Loses Counterclaim in "Vecchia" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim in the case captioned
JOSEPH DELLA VECCHIA, Plaintiff, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-2977-T-23AAS (M.D. Fla.).

Joseph Della Vecchia moves to dismiss the counterclaims for
failure to invoke subject-matter jurisdiction.

Della Vecchia borrowed money from Ally Financial to buy a
vehicle.  After Della Vecchia defaulted on the loan, Ally
allegedly called Della Vecchia more than a hundred times.  Della
Vecchia sues Ally under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act.

Although the TCPA claim and the counterclaims result generally
from Della Vecchia's alleged failure to pay the loan, the TCPA
claim and the counterclaims largely require different evidence.
For example, success on the TCPA claim requires proof that Ally
called Della Vecchia's cell phone with an automatic telephone
dialing system, which proof might require Della Vecchia to depose
an Ally corporate representative familiar with the company's
telephone systems, a topic unrelated to the breach-of-contract
and detinue counterclaims.

Even if Della Vecchia consented in the contract to a call from
Ally, the contractual consent might not foreclose the TCPA claim
if Della Vecchia proves a subsequent revocation of consent. In
sum, the counterclaims' superficial or tangential relation to the
TCPA claim fails to establish supplemental jurisdiction.

Tangentially or superficially related to the TCPA claim, the
breach-of-contract and detinue counterclaims are not part of the
same case or controversy as the TCPA claim. Even if the
counterclaims invoke supplemental jurisdiction, the counterclaims
likely will predominate over the TCPA claim.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the counterclaims is granted,
and the counterclaims are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hyupta from Leagle.com.

Joseph Della Vecchia, Plaintiff, represented by Kaelyn
Steinkraus, The Law Office of Michael A. Zeigler, P.L. & Michael
Andrew Ziegler, Law Office of Michael A. Ziegler, Esq, 13575 58th
North Street, Suite 129, Clearwater, FL 33760

Ally Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin T. Wong,
Troutman Sanders, LLP Bank of America Plaza, 401 Ninth Street
N.W., Suite 1000. Washington, D.C. 20004

Robert Michael Daisley, Mediator, represented by Robert Michael
Daisley -- rob@daisleymediation.com -- Law Office of Robert
Michael Daisley, PA.

Ally Financial, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Justin T.
Wong, Troutman Sanders, LLP Bank of America Plaza.

Joseph Della Vecchia, Counter Defendant, represented by Kaelyn
Steinkraus, The Law Office of Michael A. Zeigler, P.L. & Michael
Andrew Ziegler, Law Office of Michael A. Ziegler, Esq.


AMERICAN CASINO: "Herrera" Sues Over Illegal Internet Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Herrera, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Casino & Entertainment
Properties, LLC, Stratosphere Gaming, LLC, Stratosphere Holding,
LLC, Golden Entertainment (NV) , Inc. and Golden Casinos Nevada,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00218, (D. Nev., February 6,
2018), seeks damages and restitution for the total amount of
taxes Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion
of the Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access
pursuant to the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Defendants charge overnight guests a mandatory, per-night resort
fee which includes daily access for two guests each day to the
fitness center at the property, daily in-room Internet access for
two devices, and all local phone calls. When charging a Resort
Fee that included Internet access, Defendants applied the Clark
County Combined Transient Lodging Tax to the entire amount of the
Resort Fee, which includes the portion of the Resort Fee that
constitutes charges for Internet access.

Golden Entertainment and Golden Casinos Nevada operate as "Golden
Casins," while American Casino & Entertainment Properties,
Stratosphere Gaming and Stratosphere Holding operates as
Stratosphere Casino where Herrera was a guest. He claims to be
taxed for internet access. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Patrick Madden, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: pmadden@bm.net

             - and -

      Stuart McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Blvd., Ste. 300
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Tel: (855) 467-0451
      Fax: (662) 368-1506
      Email: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


AMERICAN GIRL BRANDS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Girl
Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. American Girl Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02134
(S.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

American Girl Brands, LLC manufactures, distributes, and retails
dolls, books, clothes, toys, and accessories in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Cox" Suit in S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Recovery
Service Incorporated. The case is styled as Eddie Dean Cox,
Lawrence Christian and Denny Large, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Recovery
Service Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00436 (S.D.
W.V., March 13, 2018).

American Recovery Service Incorporated provides commercial
accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com

      - and -

   Matthew Stonestreet, Esq.
   THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM
   118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 343-2900
   Fax: (304) 343-2942
   Email: matt@thewvlawfirm.com

      - and -

   Ralph C. Young, Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com

      - and -

   Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

      - and -

   Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
   THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM
   118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 343-2900
   Fax: (304) 343-2942
   Email: troy@thewvlawfirm.com


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Phillips"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the class action styled WILLIAM
SCOTT PHILLIPS; SUZANNE SCHMIDT PHILLIPS; WILLIAM COTTRELL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-
17189 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs' appeal the district court's dismissal of their
putative class action against Apple, Inc. for alleged violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False
Advertising Law (FAL).

Accordingly to the Ninth Circuit, the fact that Apple generally
encourages consumers to install software updates does not
establish that plaintiffs themselves are likely to be injured by
future updates.  They could choose not to install updates, or
they could install them and immediately disable Wi-Fi Assist, the
Ninth Circuit said.  In either scenario, they will be unharmed.

The Ninth Circuit also notes that despite plaintiffs' contention
that they "have no choice but to upgrade their iOS devices," and
the fact that Apple released eleven updates to iOS 9 in 2015 and
2016, none of the plaintiffs have experienced data overages as a
result of Wi-Fi Assist since they discovered and disabled the
feature. Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to seek injunctive
relief.

Plaintiffs did not allege that Apple received money or property,
indirectly or otherwise, from their overage payments. The
district court explicitly invited them to do so, granting them
leave to amend their complaint to allege a sufficiently traceable
connection between the money they paid and the money Apple
received. Plaintiffs declined that opportunity. Absent any
allegation that Apple directly or indirectly received the money
plaintiffs paid their wireless carriers for excess data usage,
they are not entitled to restitution, and the district court
properly dismissed their UCL and FAL claims.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 15, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ag6pyk from
Leagle.com.


ARVEST BANK: Faces "Chandler" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arvest Bank. The
case is styled as Jessica Chandler and Adam King, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Arvest
Bank, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00043-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 12,
2018).

Arvest Bank is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, with branches in
Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase&Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: adam@webbllc.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Divine" Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Naima Divine, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio
No 15 LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03485
(D. N.J., March 13, 2018).

Defendant Asset Recovery is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
   Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group. PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: "Spiegel" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mike Spiegel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Ashwood
Financial, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendant/Appellee, Case
No. 18-1560 was brought before the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit on March 13, 2018.

Ashwood Financial, Inc. is a Nationwide Collection Agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff/Appellant is represented by:

   David J. Philipps, Esq.
   PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS
   9760 S. Roberts Road
   Palos Hills, IL 60465-0000
   Tel: 708-974-2900

The Defendant/Appellee is represented by:

   Karen B. Neiswinger, Esq.
   LAW OFFICE OF KAREN NEISWINGER
   5335 N. Tacoma Avenue
   P.O. Box 551099
   Indianapolis, IN 46205-1099
   Tel: 317-251-2250


ATRIUM HEALTH: Target of New Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Paul Boyd, writing for WSOCTV News, reports that Carolinas
HealthCare System, recently rebranded Atrium Health, is the
target of a new class-action lawsuit alleging anti-competitive
conduct and high payments for thousands of patients.

The suit comes on the heels of a similar civil antitrust lawsuit
filed by the Department of Justice in 2016. That case is ongoing.

Both complaints allege that CHS uses its market dominance to
negotiate unlawful contracts that prevent insurance companies
from offering lower-cost alternatives to patients.

The class-action lawsuit potentially involves tens of thousands
of patients who have stayed overnight in a Carolinas HealthCare
System hospital over the past four years and reads in part: "As a
direct result of CHS's anti-competitive conduct, inpatient
consumers are forced to pay above-competitive prices for co-
insurance and other direct payments to CHS."

Atrium Health responded to the lawsuit by saying that it "neither
violated any law nor deviated from accepted healthcare industry
practices for contracting and negotiation. We believe this case
is without merit and look forward to presenting our position in
court."

Legal experts said it's possible this latest lawsuit never sees
the inside of a courtroom and said settlements are common in
cases like this one, especially with legal pressure also coming
from the Justice Department.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by Charlotte-based Dozier
Miller Law Group.

Attorney Adam Hocutt, Esq. -- ahocutt@doziermillerlaw.com --
declined a full comment and told Channel 9 that "the lawsuit and
its allegations speak for themselves."

"On Feb. 28, 2018, a plaintiff filed a civil action against
Atrium Health claiming that certain provisions in contracts
between Atrium Health and insurance companies were financially
detrimental. This follow-on suit mirrors arguments previously
presented in related litigation. Atrium Health has neither
violated any law nor deviated from accepted healthcare industry
practices for contracting and negotiation. We believe this case
is without merit and look forward to presenting our position in
court.

"Atrium Health has been recognized by healthcare and community
groups, as well as by the government, for the quality care and
cost reduction programs we have implemented. We are dedicated to
our mission -- to improve health, elevate hope and advance
healing -- for all, and our commitment to delivering high-quality
services to anyone that comes through our doors will always be
our main focus." [GN]


AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "Mcbride" Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audi of America,
LLC. The case is styled as Michael Mcbride, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audi of
America, LLC, Audi Aktiengesellschaft and Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00284-LO-MSN
(E.D. Va., March 14, 2018).

Audi of America, LLC owns and operates Audi brand car dealerships
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mikhael David Charnoff, Esq.
   Perry Charnoff PLLC
   1010 N Glebe Rd, Suite 310
   Arlington, VA 22201
   Tel: (703) 291-6650
   Fax: (703) 563-6692
   Email: mike@perrycharnoff.com


AUTOZONE INC: "Hernandez" Suit Brought Before 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kenneth Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Respondent v.
Autozone, Inc., Defendant/Petitioner, Case No. 18-711 was brought
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
on March 14, 2018.

AutoZone is the largest retailer of aftermarket automotive parts
and accessories in the United States. Founded in 1979, AutoZone
has over 6,000 stores across the United States, Mexico, and
Brazil. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff/Respondent is represented by:

   Edwin John Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: 412-322-9243

The Defendant/Petitioner is represented by:

   Evan Benjamin Citron, Esq.
   Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
   1745 Broadway
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: 212-492-2068


AVANT GARDNER: Faces "Osorno" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avant Gardner LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Osorno, Jose Manuel Pastrana,
Fernando Perez Garcia and Samuel Lopez Montalvo, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Avant
Gardner LLC. doing business as: Brooklyn Mirage, AGDP Holding,
Inc. doing business as: Brooklyn Mirage formerly known as: Avant
Gardner Mgmt, Inc., Benjamin Roshia, Juergen Bildstein, Philipp
Wiederkehr and Stanislav Chijik, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01513 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Avant Gardner operates a multifunctional, cultural, corporate,
music and entertainment venue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


BBC WORLDWIDE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBC Worldwide
Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc. doing business as: Top Gear,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02254 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018).

BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc. manages media and entertainment
businesses in America.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BELLA BUS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bella Bus Corp. The
case is styled as Allan A Anderson and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. Bella Bus Corp., Total
Transportation Corp., Agostino Vona, John Cronin and Joseph Sgro,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01552 (E.D. N.Y., March 13, 2018).

Bella Bus Corp. operates a carpool/vanpool business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BELLICUM PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLCM) ("Bellicum") on behalf of
all purchasers of common stock during the period between May 8,
2017 and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Bellicum focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than April 9, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonfistel.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
adverse information. Specifically, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) a
substantial undisclosed risk of encephalopathy was associated
with the Company's lead product candidate BPX-501; and (2) as a
result, Bellicum's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 30, 2018, after the market closed, Bellicum issued a
press release announcing that it had ''received notice from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration that U.S. studies of BPX-501
have been placed on a clinical hold following three cases of
encephalopathy deemed as possibly related to BPX-501.''

On this news, the price of Bellicum stock declined nearly 26%, on
January 31, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Bellicum common stock during the Class Period.

                      About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results
do not guarantee future outcomes.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com[GN]


BEN'S KOSHER: Faces "Avelar" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben's Kosher
Delicatessen & Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Oscar
Avelar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Ben's Kosher Delicatessen & Restaurant Inc., Ben's
Restaurant Group, Inc. and Country Glen Kosher Restaurant, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01479 (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Ben's Kosher Delicatessen & Restaurant Inc operates in the
restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BORROWERSFIRST INC: "Chavez" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Borrowersfirst, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00270, (S.D. Cal.,
February 6, 2018), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff allegedly incurred financial obligations to Defendant
and fell behind on payments. Borrowersfirst subsequently began
contacting Chavez to collect on the alleged debt by placing
autodialed calls to his cellular telephone number thereby
incurring charges for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Clark Conforti, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             clark@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CALLE 8 LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calle 8, LLC. The
case is styled as Carlos Lopez, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Calle 8, LLC doing business as: Calle 8,
S&P Rothdish, LLC doing business as: Calle 8, Jeffrey Kadish also
known as: Jeff Kadish, Joe Del Monte, Robert Stavis, Paul Zweben,
Lawrence Bernstein, William Montgomery and Spencer Rothschild,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02173 (S.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Calle 8, LLC is in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Dress" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A. The case is styled as David Dress, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00268-CMH-IDD
(E.D. Va., March 9, 2018).

Capital One Bank (USA), National Association offers financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses, and
commercial clients in the United States, Canada, and the United
Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-9285
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7576
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 640-3334
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com


CENERGY INT'L: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Doiron" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendants'
Second Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Strike Class and
Collective Allegations in the case captioned CHARLES DOIRON,
individually and On behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01203 (W.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and a class,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.  Plaintiff avers that Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA), by paying employees a day rate with no overtime.

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to
sufficiently plead both that he and the putative class members
are similarly situated, and that an employer policy existed. In
response, Plaintiff contends that his pleading complies with
standards applicable at this stage in the litigation, and that
Defendant's challenge is premature.

Under the FLSA, an employee may bring a so-called collective
action, and bring suit on their own behalf and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated. Employees may be similarly situated
if they suffer from a single policy, even if unofficial, that
violates the FLSA.

This is not one of the rare cases in which dismissal, or striking
Plaintiff's class and collective allegations, is justified.

Plaintiff pleads, inter alia, that a group of HSE advisors work
for Defendant; those advisors are paid a day rate; and that those
advisors work overtime, but are not paid overtime. He avers that
in the alternative, these employees were misclassified as exempt
from overtime requirements. This litigation has only recently
commenced; the parties have engaged in no discovery, and have
initiated no certification proceedings. Defendant's challenge
rests on Plaintiff's failure to include details such as the names
of Defendant's clients for whom Plaintiff and putative class
members worked that are not required at this early stage.

Defendant points to the possibility of similarity-destroying
facts, such as client-determined policies, that are more
appropriately addressed through and following discovery. More
detailed allegations would certainly ease the path of this
litigation; under applicable standards, however, Plaintiff's
class and collective averments are adequate.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint comports with applicable standards.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss or strike will be denied, without
prejudice to Defendant to revisit its contentions at a later
stage in this proceeding.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9hky2br
from Leagle.com.

CHARLES DOIRON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua P. Geist,
Goodrich & Geist, P.C., 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15212, Andrew W. Dunlap -- adunlap@mybackwages.com -
- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice & Matthew S. Parmet --
mparmet@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC.

CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jean E. Novak -- jnovak@smgglaw.com -- Strassburger, McKenna,
Gutnick & Gefsky & Trent A. Echard -- techard@smgglaw.com --
Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky.


CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: Dismissal of Forensic Exams Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
judgment of the District Court dismissing the case captioned N.
L., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad litem and all others
similarly situated Guardian Ad Litem Jacqueline Arce, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES; CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
LOS ANGELES MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-56019
(9th Cir.).

The operative complaint alleges that CHLA violated N.L.'s
constitutional rights by conducting an invasive forensic medical
examination for signs of child abuse without judicial
authorization and without his parents' knowledge or consent. The
district court held that the pleading did not state a claim under
Section 1983 because it did not plausibly allege that CHLA acted
under color of state law.

The pleading plausibly alleges that, in performing an intrusive
forensic examination of N.L., CHLA was not providing medical
treatment but instead was exercising its discretion to
collaborate with county government in the laudable endeavor of
investigating child abuse, a potential crime.

The Ninth Circuit held that the complaint's allegations that CHLA
acted under color of state law are sufficient to survive a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 15, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7n7sxxm from
Leagle.com.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Maxcimo Scott, Jay Francis Ensor, Christina Jewel
Gateley, Stacy Higgs, Eufemia Jimenez, Matthew A. Medina and
Krystal Parker filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Scott, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-8333, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs have previously filed appeals in the lawsuit,
including an appeal from the denial of their motion for class
certification.

Chipotle has previously defeated certification of separate
classes involving allegations that the job position of
"Apprentice" was misclassified as exempt for purposes of paying
overtime wages.  The case was brought by seven individuals, who
had worked as Apprentices in various Chipotle stores.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott, et al. v. Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-359, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Maxcimo Scott, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Jay Francis Ensor, Christina Jewel
Gateley, Krystal Parker, Stacy Higgs, Eufemia Jimenez and Matthew
A. Medina are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Rachel M. Bien, Esq.
          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  rmb@outtengolden.com
                  mstewart@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 477-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 477-8831
          E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle
Services, LLC, are represented by:

          Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Lisa Marie Lewis, Esq.
          Brian Daniel Murphy, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 653-8700
          E-mail: lmlewis@sheppardmullin.com
                  bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Kendra N. Beckwith, Esq.
          John Shunk, Esq.
          MESSNER REEVES LLP
          1430 Wynkoop Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-1800
          E-mail: kbeckwith@messner.com
                  jshunk@messner.com

Movant National Employment Law Project is represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          2 International Drive
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 994-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com


CIVITAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Civitan Foundation,
Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Civitan
Foundation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02175 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 12, 2018).

Civitan Foundation is a non-profit organization focusing on
employment opportunities, education, day training (DTA
programming), and promoting community for individuals with
developmental disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COINBASE: CA Claiming Insiders Benefited from Bitcoin Cash Launch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Coinbase is
facing a new lawsuit alleging that its employees and other
insiders reaped huge gains by trading on nonpublic information
that the cryptocurrency exchange planned to support transactions
in a Bitcoin offshoot called Bitcoin Cash.

The class action suit, filed March 1 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, appears to be the first
filed in a federal court alleging insider trading-like claims
over Coinbase's announcement that it would handle transactions in
Bitcoin Cash last December.

According to the complaint, insiders drove up the price of
Bitcoin Cash, also called BCH, by executing buy and sell orders
moments after the move by Coinbase -- one of the largest
cryptocurrency exchanges in the world.

The activity caused the value of the cryptocurrency to spike by
200 percent in the minutes after trading opened on Dec. 19, the
complaint adds. That led Coinbase to temporarily freeze trading,
and remaining Bitcoin Cash purchasers were forced to pay
"artificially inflated prices that had been manipulated well
beyond the fair market value of BCH at that time," it alleges.

The complaint also says that, while Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong
has publicly acknowledged suspicions of insider trading and
pledged to undertake an internal investigation, "to date, neither
Armstrong nor the company has disclosed the result of its
purported investigation."

The complaint was filed by Green & Noblin in Larkspur,
California, and by The Grant Law Firm in New York. The named
plaintiff, Jeffrey Berk, is an Arizona resident who alleges that
his buy order for BCH was executed at roughly double the price as
when he submitted it.

Coinbase did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment
about the lawsuit.

Although the complaint makes insider trading-like allegations, it
cites California's Unfair Competition Law and common law
negligence as causes of action -- likely due to the fact that BCH
is not currently regulated as a security. The Commodities Futures
Trading Corp. has said that Bitcoin is a commodity.

BCH was created last year by what is known as a "hard fork" of
the Bitcoin blockchain -- the creation of a variant of the
original software. According to the complaint, Coinbase initially
suggested it would not handle transactions in BCH. The company
later said it would begin supporting some transactions in BCH in
January 2018 but then abruptly changed course by opening trading
on Dec. 19, the complaint alleges.

In a subsequent blog post, a senior Coinbase manager wrote that
employees were notified about a month ahead of time that support
for trading in BCH was coming. Those employees "were explicitly
prohibited from buying and selling BCH," he added. "All employees
were also barred from sharing this information with anyone
outside of Coinbase." [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Carr" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Jayson Carr, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01477-
ADS-GRB (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Time to Respond to "Curley" Extended
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
extended the time for Defendants to file responsive pleading to
Plaintiff's Collective and Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned DANIELLE CURLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CUSTOMER CONNEXX LLC; ARCA,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00233-JAD-GWF (D.Nev.).

Defendants Customer Connexx LLC and ARCA, Inc., by and through
their counsel of record, Jackson Lewis P.C., and Plaintiff
Danielle Curley, by and through her counsel of record, Thierman
Buck LLP, stipulated to extend the time for Defendants to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Collective and Class Action
Complaint for two weeks because the defense counsel were only
recently retained and require the additional time to investigate
and prepare Defendants' response.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9q7cf8 from Leagle.com.

Danielle Curley, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Buck --
josh@thiermanbuck.com  -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones --
leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman --
mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

Customer Connexx LLC & ARCA, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Paul T. Trimmer -- trimmerp@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


DIRECT ENERGY: "Gomez" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryeshea Gomez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Direct Energy, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00301 (M.D. Pa., February 6, 2017), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, statutory damages of $500.00 for each and
every call, treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every
call, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Direct Energy is an energy company that provides electricity and
natural gas services.  Direct Energy called Gomez's cellular
telephone number with an automatic telephone dialing system,
without any consent whatsoever, to sell its services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cunniff" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as John L. Cunniff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01071-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 14, 2018).

Equifax Inc. is a publicly traded corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is the
oldest and second-largest consumer credit reporting agency in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Jonathan Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc. and
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01025-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 9, 2018).

Equifax Inc. is a publicly traded corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is the
oldest and second-largest consumer credit reporting agency in the
United States.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

   Jonathan Daniel Klein, Esq.
   Clark Hill PLC -PA
   One Commerce Square
   2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 640-8500
   Email: jklein@clarkhill.com


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Consumers Hit Inflated Gas, Electricity Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Correia Everso, Donna Cordeiro, Janice Angelillo, Anna
Maria Fornino, Michele Cassetta, Judy Cennami, Janice Brady, Opal
Ash, Mark Lejeune and Roberto Prats, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eversource Energy, a
Massachusetts voluntary association and Avangrid, Inc., a New
York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 10235 (D. Mass.,
February 6, 2018), seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of New England energy consumers who paid
supracompetitive prices for natural gas and electricity during
the period from August 1, 2013 through at least July 31, 2016, in
violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and various state
consumer protection laws.

Eversource Energy is a public utility holding company primarily
engaged in the energy delivery business. Avangrid, Inc. owns
electric generation, transmission, and distribution companies and
natural gas distribution, transportation and sales companies in
New York, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Defendants
allegedly exploited their ability to reserve and then cancel
critical pipeline capacity without penalty to reduce natural gas
supplies and increase natural gas prices, particularly during the
New England Winter. Defendants' manipulation of natural gas
capacity in New England artificially inflated the price paid by
all power plants in New England that generate electricity from
natural gas thereby increasing the cost of natural gas and
electricity purchased by Plaintiffs, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             kristiel@hbsslaw.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Gordon" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Larry Gordon, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Transworld Systems, Inc., National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2006-3, The National Collegiate Funding LLC, Vantage
Capital Group, LLC, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01538 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


FREEDOM MORTAGE: Faces "Weinshank" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortage
Corporation. The case is styled as Hal Weinshank, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freedom Mortage
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 34-2018-00229068-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 14, 2018).

Freedom Mortgage Corporation, doing business as Jefferson Home
Mortgage and Loan, LLC, provides residential mortgage lender
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth H Yoon, Esq.
   624 S Grand Ave
   Los Angeles, CA 90017, USA
   Tel: +1 213-612-0988


GALLITOS MEXICAN: Faces "Lucero" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gallitos Mexican
Urban Kitchen Inc. The case is styled as Teodoro Cuevas Lucero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gallitos Mexican Urban Kitchen Inc. doing business
as: Gallito's Kitchen, BaharMit Rana Rest Corp. doing business
as: Gallito's Kitchen, AQSA Food Corp. doing business as:
Gallito's Kitchen, Bahar Rest Corp. doing business as: Gallito's
Kitchen and Bahar H Khandakar, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01542
(E.D. N.Y., March 13, 2018).

Gallitos Mexican Urban Kitchen Inc. operates in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GAY AND LESBIAN: Lawyers Team for Class Suit Over Canceled Event
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Rodney Ferrell trained for months and spent more than $4,000 on
airfare, hotel, car rental and other expenses to travel to Miami
Beach for the 2017 World OutGames, according to his attorneys.

The Los Angeles television producer and tennis player came to
South Florida for what was billed as a 10-day event beginning May
26 and showcasing LGBTQ athletes from 59 countries.

But only hours before the official start, Ferrell and thousands
of other participants learned organizers had botched spending,
canceled the opening and closing ceremonies, and could no longer
host many of the conferences and social gatherings.

Now, Ferrell is the lead plaintiff in a putative class action
filed by South Florida and California attorneys against the
organizers -- the Gay and Lesbian International Sport
Association, OutGames founder Ivan Cano, chief financial officer
Keith Hart and Miami Beach-Miami LGBT Sports & Cultural League
Inc., also known as World OutGames Miami 2017.

"He chose to come forward in part because nobody else has," said
South Florida class counsel Marc A. Wites, Esq. --
Mwites@wklawyers.com -- of the Wites Law Firm in Lighthouse
Point. "It's an effort to speak out for the athletes and people
from all over the country who . . . trained and spent money to
come to an event that was billed as a spectacular extravaganza
when all along the promoters knew it was never going to come to
fruition."

The five-count complaint filed in Miami federal court alleges
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
contract, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act and breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

The lawsuit claims organizers knew they could not deliver but
continued to promote a dazzling array of attractions. A three-day
Global Conference on Human Rights, for instance, was supposed to
feature more than 50 speakers, and a cultural program would
include art, dance, music, literary and vocal music offerings
from around the world. Celebrities including Omar Sharif Jr. and
Tito Puente Jr. were slated to entertain during the opening
ceremony.

Instead, news reports soon emerged showing organizers raised more
than $1 million but spent more than $600,000 on consulting,
advertising and promotional fees. Miami Beach police found no
"malicious intent" and declined to file criminal charges

OutGames did not respond to requests for comment by deadline, and
no attorney has entered an appearance on the organizers' behalf
in the suit filed Feb. 19.

Meanwhile, class co-counsel Darin T. Beffa, Esq. --
darin@beffalaw.com -- of Beffa Law in Los Angeles drew
comparisons to the ill-fated and high-priced Fyre Festival, which
organizers had pitched as "Coachella in the Bahamas," with
tickets costing up to $12,000 a piece.

"It's sort of a strikingly similar situation," Beffa said.

Fyre unraveled when attendees discovered that instead of private
luxury villas, organizers had provided carpeted tents with
outdoor toilets. At least four class actions against the music
festival's organizers are pending in Florida, New York and
California.

The OutGames litigation was assigned to U.S. District Judge
Kathleen M. Williams. [GN]


GE SAVINGS PLAN: Fund Mismanagement Suit Transferred to Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kristi Haskins, Laura Scully and Donald J.
Janak, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons in the General Electric Retirement
Savings Plan and the General Electric Savings and Security
Program, Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company, General
Electric Retirement Savings Plan Trustees and Does 1-30,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1960 (S.D. Cal., September 26, 2017),
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on February 7, 2018, under Case No. 18-
cv-10234.

General Electric (GE) operates a global digital industrial
company and an investment management business through GE Asset
Management Incorporated. Plaintiffs participated in GE's 401(k)
Plan, the General Electric Retirement Savings Plan, with GE as
the Plan's sponsor and administrator. Plaintiffs claim that the
fund is mismanaged as a result of GE's selection of poor-to-
mediocre-performing investment options in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. [BN]

General Electric Retirement Savings Plan Trustees are represented
by:

      Andrew H. Miller, Esq.
      David W Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202)499-5200
      Facsimile: (202)499-5199
      Email: amiller@sanfordheisler.com
             dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Charles H. Field, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 577-4253
      Fax: (619) 577-4250
      Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      David Hahn Tracey, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 402-5667
      Fax: (646) 402-5651
      Email: mdtracey@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Kevin Sharp, Esq.
      Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
      611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 434-7001
      Fax: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

General Electric Company is represented by:

      Alison V. Douglass, Esq.
      James O. Fleckner, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
      100 Northern Avenue
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 570-1676
      Fax: (617) 523-1231
      Email: adouglass@goodwinprocter.com
             jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com

             - and -

      Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      601 South Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 426-2500
      Fax: (213) 623-1673
      Email: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com

             - and -

      Jaime A. Santos, Esq.
      Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      901 New York Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 346-4000
      Fax: (202) 346-4444
      Email: msheldon@goodwinlaw.com
             jsantos@goodwinlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Manning" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company. The case is styled as Steven Manning, Andrew Hill and
Nathan Dodge, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors Company, General Motors
Holdings, LLC and General Motors, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-20914-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2018).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Heyward Hickey, Esq.
   Hickey Law Firm PA
   1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 371-8000
   Fax: 371-3542
   Email: FEDERALCOURTFILINGS@HICKEYLAWFIRM.COM


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Mock Files Suit v. County Sheriff, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glynn County,
Georgia. The case is styled as Margery Freida Mock and Eric Scott
Ogden, Jr., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Glynn County, Georgia, E. Neal Jump
Glynn County Sheriff, Alex Atwood, Glynn County Chief Magistrate
Judge and B. Reid Zeh, III, Glynn County Misdemeanor Public
Defender, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00025-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga.,
March 9, 2018).

Glynn County is a county located in the U.S. state of Georgia. As
of the 2010 census, the population was 79,626. The county seat is
Brunswick. Glynn County is part of the Brunswick, Georgia
Metropolitan Statistical Area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrea Woods, Esq.
   American Civil Liberties Union
   125 Broad St.
   18th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 549-2528
   Email: awoods@aclu.org

      - and -

   James A Yancey, Jr., Esq.
   James A. Yancey, PC
   704 G Street
   Brunswick, GA 31520
   Tel: (912) 265-8562
   Fax: (912) 265-8564
   Email: jayjr@standinthegap.biz

      - and -

   Twyla Carter, Esq.
   American Civil Liberties Union
   125 Broad Street
   18th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (347) 749-7138
   Email: tcarter@aclu.org


GOOGLE: Former Employee Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Flora Carr, writing for Fortune, reports that Google is being
sued by a former employee, who alleges that she endured constant
harassment and "lewd comments" due to the company's unhealthy
"bro culture."

Loretta Lee, a software engineer who worked for the Silicon
Valley giant from 2008 until she was fired Feb. 2016, filed suit
against Google for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and
wrongful termination in Santa Clara County Superior Court,
Calif., reports Gizmodo.

Lee alleges that she was subject to constant "lewd comments,
pranks and even physical violence," claiming that male co-workers
spiked her drinks, and on one occasion slapped her while
intoxicated during a holiday party. She was also shot at with
nerf guns, and received a message from a co-worker asking for a
"horizontal hug."

The lawsuit also highlighted an occasion where Lee found a male
co-worker hiding under desk, who allegedly shouted "You'll never
know what I was doing!" when he realised he was discovered.

"The incident with the co-worker under her desk unnerved her,"
the lawsuit says. "Plaintiff [Lee] had never spoken to that co-
worker before. She was frightened by his comment and believed he
may have installed some type of camera or similar device under
her desk."

When Lee eventually complained, she claims her co-workers
retaliated by refusing to approve her code, which resulted in the
termination of her employment in 2016 due to "poor performance."

"We have strong policies against harassment in the workplace and
review every complaint we receive," Ty Sheppard, a Google (GOOGL,
+1.13%) spokesman, said in a statement. "We take action when we
find violations -- including termination of employment."

Lee's is the latest in a series of lawsuits against the tech
giant, including James Damore's class action lawsuit alleging the
intolerance of white male conservatives. [GN]


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Kuchenmeister Appeals Order to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Beth A. Bretoi, Cindy A. Hugger-Gravitt and Leon
Kuchenmeister filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
their lawsuit titled Leon Kuchenmeister, et al. v. Healthport
Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01001-RWS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants citing alleged breach of
contract, fraud and unjust enrichment from overcharging patients
for health records.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of all those similarly
situated alleging that the Defendants excessively charged the
Plaintiffs for copies of their personal health information.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs sustained financial
harm from being unlawfully charged.  The Plaintiffs hold the
Defendants responsible because the Defendants allegedly charged
their patients for providing medical records requested by their
physicians or hospitals.

The appellate case is captioned as Leon Kuchenmeister, et al. v.
Healthport Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-10468, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief was due on or before March 19, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before March 7, 2018, as to Appellee CIOX Health, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LEON KUCHENMEISTER, CINDY A. HUGGER-GRAVITT
and BETH A. BRETOI, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 E Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030-2512
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          PO Box 1478
          Marietta, GA 30061-1478
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          E-mail: krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          Christopher Adam Johnston, Esq.
          Christopher Peter Martineau, Esq.
          JOHNSTON MARTINEAU PLLP
          2233 Hamline Avenue N, Suite 102
          Po Box 55113
          Roseville, MN 55113
          Telephone: (612) 767-7790
          E-mail: cjohnston@jm-legal.com
                  cmartineau@jm-legal.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Donald Sawyer, Esq.
          Amy L. Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 374-3405
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  dsawyer@keoghlaw.com
                  AWells@KeoghLaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, d.b.a. IOD
Incorporated d.b.a. Healthport Technologies, LLC; IOD
INCORPORATED; and CIOX HEALTH, LLC, individually, are represented
by:

          Thomas Artaki, Esq.
          Nathaniel J. Kritzer, Esq.
          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Marquel P. Reddish, Esq.
          Alexandra Strang, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: thomas.artaki@kirkland.com
                  nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com
                  lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  marquel.reddish@kirkland.com
                  allie.strang@kirkland.com

               - and -

          William V. Custer, IV, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Dempsey, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree Street NW, Floor 14
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-6828
          Facsimile: (404) 572-6999
          E-mail: bill.custer@bryancave.com
                  jennifer.dempsey@bryancave.com


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Delson" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Worldwide
Inc. The case is styled as Walter Delson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hilton Worldwide
Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02140-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2018).

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., formerly Hilton Hotels
Corporation, is an American multinational hospitality company
that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and
resorts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Brett Wolf, Esq.
   Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr and Kane
   9696 Culver City Suite 301
   Culver City, CA 90232
   Tel: (415) 766-3545
   Fax: (415) 402-0058
   Email: awolf@prwlegal.com

      - and -

   Catherine M Cabalo, Esq.
   Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr and Kane
   4 Embarcadero Center 14 th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 766-3592
   Fax: (415) 402-0058


HITACHI CHEMICAL: $66MM Class Action Antitrust Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge granted preliminary approval to a proposed $66
million class action settlement on March 2 between capacitor
manufacturer Hitachi Chemical and class action members in an
antitrust case.

The class action lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of
California, alleged Hitachi Chemical and its subsidiaries worked
with other competitors in order to inflate the price of
capacitors, a component used in a variety of electronic products,
in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

Hitachi Chemical announced in December that they had reached a
settlement agreement with the two different class action members,
made up of various tech companies who directly purchased the
capacitors and individuals who indirectly purchased them through
various electronic devices.

U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote that the final approval
hearing will take place on June 7. [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Pacheco" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal from an
amended order entered on January 31, 2018, in the lawsuit styled
Augustine Pacheco, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case
No. 0:17-cv-05048-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The appellate case is captioned as Augustine Pacheco, et al. v.
Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 18-1294, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 19,
2018, Honeywell filed an appeal from a lower court decision in
the lawsuit.  That appellate case is styled Augustine Pacheco and
Vicki Hansen, for themselves and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff-Appellees v. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant-
Appellant, Case No. 18-1006.

The lawsuit is brought to enforce collectively-bargained promises
of Honeywell-sponsored healthcare until age 65 for employees, who
took early retirement under the Honeywell-sponsored pension plan.

Honeywell has announced that it plans to terminate the healthcare
of more than 320 retirees, who are under age 65, and the
healthcare of the retirees' families on January 1, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs sue for themselves and similarly-situated retirees and
retirees' spouses, other dependents, and surviving spouses.

Since the 1950s, Honeywell has been a party to collective
bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Local 1145, which governed the currently operating
Minnesota facilities and other Minnesota facilities now closed.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that brief of
Vicki Hansen and Augustine Pacheco was due on March 8, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Augustine Pacheco and Vicki Hansen, for
themselves and others similarly-situated, are represented by:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 S. Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48607
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com
                  israel@legghioisrael.com

               - and -

          Katrina E. Joseph, Esq.
          TEAMSTERS LOCAL 120
          9422 Ulysses Street, N.E., Suite 120
          Blaine, MN 55434
          Telephone: (763) 267-6146
          E-mail: kjoseph@teamsterslocal120.org

Defendant-Appellant Honeywell International Inc. is represented
by:

          Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq.
          Kathleen Ann Brogan, Esq.
          Craig Scott Primis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 879-5078
          E-mail: winn.allen@kirkland.com
                  kathleen.brogan@kirkland.com
                  cprimis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Donald Marion Lewis, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Robb, Esq.
          Joseph George Schmitt, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA
          400 One Financial Plaza
          120 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 305-7500
          E-mail: dlewis@nilanjohnson.com
                  jrobb@nilanjohnson.com
                  jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com


IDAHO: Court OKs Amendments to Settlement in Suit vs. DHW
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho issued
an Order granting Joint Motion to Amend/Correct Class Action
Settlement Agreement in the cases captioned K.W., by his next
friend D.W., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his
official capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare; PAUL LEARY, in his official capacity as Medicaid
Administrator of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; and
the IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, a department of the
State of Idaho, Defendants. TOBY SCHULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:12-cv-00022-
BLW, 3:12-CV-58-BLW (D. Idaho.).

The proposed Notice and the proposed process for mailing the
Notice, are approved. The Notice will state that any objections
must be mailed on or before March 31, 2018, and that the Court
will hold a hearing on any objections on April 23, 2018, at 11:00
a.m. in the Federal Courthouse -- in Courtroom #3 of Chief Judge
B. Lynn Winmill -- in Boise, Idaho.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycbnxwho from Leagle.com.

K W, by his next friend DW, Christie Mathwig, formerly known as,
C L, A L, through her guardian EB, K S, through his next friend
SS, Matthew S, through his guardian VS, N R, through her next
friend GR, T F, through her guardian RF, T M, through his
guardian TW, B B, through his next friend DB, R P, through her
guardian TP, Marcia S, through her guardian DS, E L, Toby
Schultz, Breanna Mullic & Caleb Hall, Plaintiffs, represented by
James Marshall Piotrowski -- JPiotrowski@idunionlaw.com --
HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP,
P.O. Box 2864Boise, ID 83701- 5528 & Richard Alan Eppink --
reppink@acluidaho.org -- American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho
Foundation.

Richard Armstrong, in his official capacity as Director of the
IDH&W, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, a department of
the State of Idaho & Lisa Hettinger, in her official capacity as
Medicaid Administrator of the IDH&W, Defendants, represented by
Brian V. Church, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Litigation
Division, Clay R. Smith, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cynthia Lin
Yee-Wallace, Office of Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
& W. Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Civil
Litigation.

Idaho Care Providers Network, Amicus, represented by James
Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI & Marty Durand,
Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP.


INSMED INC: Court Dismisses "Hoey" Drug Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
WILLIAM T. HOEY, on behalf of Himself and all those similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. INSMED INCORPORATED, WILLIAM H. LEWIS,
and ANDREW T. DRECHSLER, Defendants, Civ. Action No. 16-4323
(FLW)(D.N.J.).

Defendants moves for dismissal of the Amended Complaint, arguing,
inter alia, that the challenged representations are not
actionable because a duty to disclose was absent, the material
statements constitute permissible opinions or corporate puffery,
and Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead scienter.

Lead Plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund brings this
putative class action, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated individuals and entities, against Insmed
Incorporated, a biopharmaceutical company, as well as Insmed's
Chief Executive and Financial Officers, William H. Lewis, and
Andrew T. Drechsler, respectively, alleging violations under
various provisions of the applicable federal securities laws.

Plaintiff's action is based on Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with Insmed's
target drug, Arikayce, and the results of its Phase 2 Trial,
which, ultimately, failed to support regulatory approval.

Insmed and Arikayce

According to Plaintiff, Insmed is not profitable, as it has not
developed a product for commercialization, but the company seeks
regulatory approval of Arikayce, its primary drug candidate.
Arikayce, currently a drug pending approval, is intended to treat
non-tuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTM), a rare, and
sometimes fatal, infection, for which there is currently no
approved treatment.

Overview of Clinical Trials

In a Phase 1 Trial, the drug is introduced to a small group of
patients, and the study is designed to assess how the drug is
metabolized, the drug's safety profile, and the safe dosage
range. A Phase 2 Trial, on the other hand, involves a medium-
sized group of patients and identifies possible adverse effects
and safety risks preliminarily evaluates the efficacy of the
drug, and assesses dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Lastly,
in a Phase 3 Trial, a substantial amount of patients participate
and the trial typically runs for a prolonged period of time, such
that the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug can be
established, adequate information for the labeling of the drug is
provided, and, most importantly, the drug can be evaluated by a
regulatory agency for potential approval.

The European Process for Regulatory Approval

Europe's centralized procedure for regulatory approval permits a
biopharmaceutical company to market an approved drug in all
European Union (EU) member states. The approval process initiates
with a letter of intent to submit a Marketing Authorization
Application (MAA), generally no sooner than seven months before
the MAA is submitted. Upon receipt, the MAA is evaluated by the
EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP),
which ultimately determines whether the drug's quality, safety,
and efficacy are adequately proven. Two co-rapporteurs,
representing two EU member states, are also appointed by the CHMP
to lead the approval process.

Generally, the CHMP issues a final opinion concerning the MMA
within 210 days, excluding periods wherein the applicant is
required to respond to the CHMP's questions by providing
additional information. On the 120th day of the application
process, after the CHMP reviews preliminary assessment reports
and opinions provided by the co-rapporteurs, it submits a list of
questions and an overall conclusion to the applicant (Day 120
Questions"). The applicant is expected to respond to the Day 120
Questions within three months; if required, however, the
applicant is permitted to request an extension of an additional
three months.

Insmed's Phase 2 Trial

Insmed revealed the results of the Phase 2 Trial. Although the
applicable data did not satisfy the primary endpoint of the
study, the results were, nevertheless, statistically significant;
Insmed announced that the secondary endpoint of culture
conversion was achieved: 11 out of 44 patients treated with
Arikayce demonstrated negative cultures by day 84, as compared to
3 of the 45 patients who received a placebo. The FDA and EMA
responded favorably to the data. On June 17, 2014, based on the
results of the Phase 2 Trial, the FDA granted Arikayce with
Breakthrough Therapy Designation.  Additionally, following
discussions with the EMA, Insmed determined that the Phase 2
trial data, alone, was sufficient to support regulatory approval
from that agency.

The Secondary Offering

Insmed filed a Registration Statement with the SEC, in order to
initiate a Secondary Public Offering (SPO), the net proceeds of
which were, inter alia, intended to fund Insmed's efforts to
obtain regulatory approvals and commercialize Arikayce. The
Registration Statement was filed on a Form S-3, and offered to
sell common stock in the Company on a delayed basis That is, the
SPO was structured as a shelf registration, in that Insmed
registered securities for sale and left them on the shelf, until
it decided to conduct an offering, at a later point in time.

The Day 120 Questions

Insmed received the Day 120 Questions. Among other things, the
EMA's Day 120 Questions included Major Objections outlining
certain issues in connection with the design and execution of the
Phase 2 Trial, in addition to Arikayce's safety and efficacy.
Specifically, the EMA noted its concern with the short duration
of the study: "There was no justification for a comparison with
placebo over only 84 days. There are no safety data beyond 168
consecutive days and only 59 patients achieved this duration of
exposure. It is not appropriate to ignore the fact that the
applicant is promulgating continued use way beyond that supported
by the safety database."

Statements Regarding Arikayce's Efficacy

Claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act

To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, the plaintiff must allege: (1) a material
misrepresentation or omission, (2) scienter, (3) a connection
with the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance, (5)
economic loss, and (6) loss causation.

Here, Defendants argue, among other things, that Plaintiff fails
to state a claim for securities fraud because: (a) Plaintiff has
not adequately alleged the requisite elements of falsity or
scienter; and (b) the challenged statements are forward looking
or constitute permissible expressions of opinion and corporate
puffery.

Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, "a misrepresentation or
omission of fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood
that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in
making an investment decision, and there is a substantial
likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have
been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly
altered the 'total mix' of information made available.
Importantly, to be actionable, a statement or omission must have
been materially misleading at the time it was made; liability
cannot be imposed on the basis of subsequent events.

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege that Defendants' statements are materially false or
misleading. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that
Defendants misled investors by making statements concerning (a)
the Phase 2 Trial's rate of conversion; (b) Insmed's reaction to
the Day 120 Questions; (c) the safety, efficacy, and durability
of Arikayce; (d) the nature of Insmed's interactions with the
EMA; and (e) Arikayce's prospects of approval. The Court will
assess each set of allegedly false and misleading statements, in
turn.

Statements Concerning the Phase 2 Trial's Conversion Rate

In the instant matter, the allegations concerning Defendants'
alleged omissions, as pled in the Amended Complaint, do not state
a legally valid claim, because they amount to an attack on the
methodology of the Phase 2 Trial. To be clear, Plaintiff does not
argue that Insmed inaccurately reported the results of the study
after it concluded. Nor does Plaintiff contend that Insmed
adjusted the study's underlying design or methodology, after the
raw data was unblinded, in order to conceal or manipulate its
results in favor of demonstrating Arikayce's efficacy. Rather,
Plaintiff, in the Amended Complaint, alleges that the reported
rate of conversion transforms into a statement that is materially
false and misleading when accounting for the flawed methodology
under which it was determined.

Indeed, Plaintiff essentially argues that the reported rate of
conversion was artificially inflated, because the study included
individuals who tested negative for NTM on the first day of
trial. That is, if a different metric were utilized one, for
example, which excluded negative day 1 cultures, Plaintiff
concludes that Insmed could have accurately calculated the
study's real rate of conversion: "Although Insmed reported that
patients receiving Arikayce during the Phase 2 NTM trial had
shown a culture conversion rate of approximately 30%, the true
rate of culture conversion was just 8.5%.

Thus, Plaintiff's allegations attempt to establish the falsity of
Insmed's statements with regard to the results of the Phase 2
Trial, by attacking its underlying methodology. However, as noted
above, courts throughout the country have consistently rejected
this approach; Insmed's alleged omissions with regard to the
design and structure of the Phase 2 Trial, therefore, fail to
serve as a basis for a legally valid claim under the Exchange
Act.
Statements Concerning Insmed's Reaction to the Day 120 Questions
As a threshold issue, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not
support the allegations of fraud by citing to the Day 120
Questions, but rather, it solely relies upon various portions of
the WAR which the EMA issued after the class period.

Here, the WAR, upon which Plaintiffs relies in alleging fraud,
was issued in June 2016, significantly after Insmed made the
statements which form the basis of Plaintiff's securities fraud
claim. Nonetheless, Plaintiff attempts to circumvent this timing
issue by arguing that Insmed was aware of the need to apply a
specific definition of culture conversion, which it allegedly
ignored, upon receipt of the Day 120 Questions. Although a copy
of the Day 120 Questions is not included as an exhibit to the
Amended Complaint, the WAR contains a summary, in bullet point
form, of the most significant concerns raised by the EMA in the
Day 120 Questions. In that section of the WAR, titled "Summary of
reasons for the Major Objection at D120, the EMA, admittedly,
questions the application of the Phase 2 Trial's culture
conversion definition; however, the EMA's critique in that
context is insufficient to support Plaintiff's theory of falsity.

Insmed Did Not Create a Duty to Disclose

Here, Insmed did not create a duty to disclose information
concerning the Phase 2 Trial. Plaintiff merely asserts that,
because significant concerns were raised in the Day 120
Questions, which substantially decreased the probability of
approval, Insmed was required to disclose these issues when it
spoke positively about the results of the Phase 2 Trial and
Arikayce's efficacy.
However, as already noted, the Day 120 Questions are not the
agency's final determination; instead, their primary purpose is
to facilitate a discussion between the EMA and applicant, and the
information gathered from this process is further considered by
the EMA before deciding approvability. In that connection,
district courts have found that a biopharmaceutical corporation
is not required to disclose a regulatory agency's inconclusive
findings, even if they undercut that corporation's position,
merely because the drug was described favorably or its strength
was touted.

Statements Concerning Insmed's Interaction with the EMA and
Arikayce

Here, contrary to Plaintiff's contentions, Insmed has satisfied
this obligation under the applicable securities law.
Specifically, in a Form 10-K for the year ending 2015, Insmed
explicitly states, in a paragraph titled RISK FACTORS, that risks
and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially
from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements.
Insmed then provides, inter alia, the following list of warnings,
throughout various portions of the remainder of the document: (a)
there can be no assurance that results from the Phase 2 Trial
will be sufficient to obtain full or conditional marketing
approval; (b) [i]f major objections raised during the review
procedure are not subsequently resolved, it may impact our
ability to obtain an approval without submission of additional
study data; and (c) there is little or no precedent for clinical
development and regulatory expectations for agents to treat NTM;
as a result we may encounter challenges developing clinical
endpoints and may need to reevaluate our surrogate endpoints.

The Court finds that, in total, Plaintiff has failed to plead
falsity as to the challenged representations made by Defendants.
In that connection, Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim fails on this
basis alone. However, Plaintiff also fails to plead scienter.

Scienter

Scienter stands for the mental state of intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud.

In arguing that the Individual Defendants acted with scienter,
Plaintiff underscores the following: (1) Mr. Lewis and Mr.
Drechsler, two high level officers, were likely aware of the
trial's shortcomings, because the viability of Insmed depended on
the success of Arikayce; (2) Mr. Lewis personally attended two
co-rapporteur meetings, and likely had access to the Day 120
Questions, wherein the EMA presumably informed Insmed about the
issues with the design and structure of the Phase 2 Trial;
(3)Insmed was motivated to conceal the issues with the Phase 2
Trial, and maintain a positive perception of Arikayce, in order
for patients to enroll in, and raise funding for, a Phase 3 Trial
supporting approval; and (4) Doctor Gupta, a key facilitator of
the Phase 2 Trial, resigned shortly after the results of the
study were announced. Although the Court will examine the
totality of the inferences raised by Plaintiff, those pertaining
to the Individual Defendants' motive and opportunity will be
analyzed before allegations related to conscious misbehavior or
recklessness.

Motive and Opportunity

Plaintiff maintains that Insmed likely concealed the issues with
Arikayce so patients would enroll in the Phase 3 Trial; however,
the desire to conduct a successful study, upon which regulatory
approval is sought, applies to all pharmaceutical companies and
corporate officials. Therefore, this general allegation is
insufficient for Plaintiff to meet its burden under the law.
Likewise, for this same reason, Insmed's secondary offering, in
which it raised $331 million for a Phase 3 Trial, also fails to
support a strong inference of scienter.  Because these
allegations of motive are applicable to any corporation seeking
to commercialize an investigational drug, Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately plead motive.

Conscious Misbehavior or Recklessness

Plaintiff fails to provide details with respect to the dates on
which the meetings took place, or the discussions, if any, which
transpired between Mr. Lewis and the co-rapporteurs. In fact,
based on the allegations, as pled in the Amended Complaint, the
meetings could have plausibly occurred before the conclusion of
the Phase 2 Trial, such that the EMA's concerns were not among
either meeting's topics of conversation. The Court, therefore,
cannot infer that Mr. Lewis was aware of the study's allegedly
inadequate definition of culture conversion before the disputed
representations were made, based upon his attendance of two
meetings, the purposes of which Plaintiff has not adequately
pled.
Thus, Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege scienter on this
basis.

The Securities Act

Here, the reasons as to why Plaintiff fails to state a legally
sufficient claim under the Exchange Act are equally applicable to
the claims brought under the Securities Act. Indeed, Plaintiff,
once again, fails to adequately allege that Insmed was aware of
the EMAs concerns, before making representations which Plaintiff
challenges under the law. To begin, Plaintiff argues that the
statements contained in Insmed's prospectus are actionable
because it fails to disclose the following information: (a)
Insmed was utilizing an unreasonably expansive definition of
culture conversion which artificially inflated its true rate; (b)
Residual amounts of Arikayce in patients' sputum samples likely
interfered with culture results, leading to false culture
conversions; (c) Insmed had not adequately studied or documented
the possible advantages of using liposomal amikacin for
inhalation or that the Phase 2 NTM Trial raised serious concerns
about the safety of the drug and (d) the product quality of
Arikayce was unsatisfactory.
However, the prospectus, wherein these statements are included,
was filed in March of 2015, before Insmed received the Day 120
Questions or the WAR was published. Significantly, Plaintiff does
not identify, in the Amended Complaint, any other document or
communication in which the EMA could have informed Insmed of
these concerns. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to adequately
demonstrate that Insmed's statements in the prospectus were
materially false at the time they were made.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7agxatf from
Leagle.com.

Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
SAMUEL H. RUDMAN -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP, DONALD A. ECKLUND -- decklund@carellabyrne.com  --
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & JAMES E.
CECCHI -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

WILLIAM T. HOEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL --
GREENBERG epalomino@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC.

INSMED INCORPORATED, WILLIAM H. LEWIS, ANDREW T. DRECHSLER,
Donald Hayden, Jr., Alfred F. Altomari, Steinar J. Engelsen,
M.D., David W.J. McGirr, Melvin Sharoky, M.D. & Randall W.
Whitcomb, M.D., Defendants, represented by JONATHAN ROTENBERG --
jonathan.rotenberg@kattenlaw.com -- KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP.
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., Leerink Partners LLC, JMP
SECURITIES LLC & Wainwright & Co., LLC, Defendants, represented
by JONATHAN ROTENBERG, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP & PHILIP S.
ROSEN -- prosen@zeklaw.com -- ZEICHNER, ELLMAN & KRAUSE, LLP.


JANSEN PHARMA: Pharma Cos. Sued Over Newborns' Opioid Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed February 28 in U.S. District
Court of Southern Illinois suing several pharmaceutical companies
manufacturing opioids, saying the prescription drug led to
several babies being born addicted to opioids, various news
sources reported.

Within the lawsuit, details highlight one child born in March
2017. The baby's mother was prescribed opioids for a broken
ankle.

This prescription lead to an addiction to opioids and then
heroin, according to the lawsuit.

The woman's baby was born March 2017 at Alton Memorial Hospital
with opioid withdrawals including excessive crying, refusing to
feed, tremors and seizures. The condition is known as Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome.

Illinois Majority Senate Leader James Clayborne is backing this
lawsuit.

"Healthy babies spend 1-2 days in the hospital, these babies,
innocent victims, spend at least 28 days in the hospital for
treatment," said St. Sen. James Clayborne Jr.

Clayborne says the goal of this lawsuit is to hold the
pharmaceutical companies responsible for the treatment and
recovery of these babies.

He does not want taxpayers to take on the treatment bills for
these incidents.

The Belleville News-Democrat said the case focused on the baby,
only identified by his initials T.W.B.  He was born March 21,
2017, and spent the first days of his life in "excruciating pain"
as he was weaned from his opioid addiction, inherited from his
mother.

"Baby T.W.B. will require years of treatment and counseling to
deal with the effects of prenatal exposure," the lawsuit says.
"Baby T.W.B. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that
has ravaged Illinois, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal
with the aftermath."

Alton residents Deric and Ceonda Rees, the baby's grandparents,
filed the lawsuit on March 28 in the U.S. District Court of
Southern Illinois.  Ceonda Rees declined to comment, saying she
had been advised not to discuss the lawsuit.

The baby was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, which
can cause breathing and feeding problems, and require a longer
hospital stay while they are experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

Taking opioids during pregnancy can also cause babies to be born
with birth defects, according to Stanford Children's Health. The
number of babies born with this disease has increased fivefold
since 2000, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

At birth, Baby T.W.B. shook, refused to feed and cried
excessively as he arched his back from the pain, according to the
lawsuit.  It was difficult to soothe him, and his development was
delayed.

The baby's mother became addicted to opioids when she was
prescribed them for a broken ankle and broken hand as a young
teenager.  Her addiction to prescription opiates functioned as a
gateway to heroin addiction, according to the lawsuit.  The
lawsuit alleges the mother consumed drugs made and distributed by
each of the 20 defendants, including Dilaudid, Percocet,
Oxycodone and Hydrocodone.

The lawsuit accuses the pharmaceutical companies of creating an
environment where opioids freely flow due to "false, negligent
and unfair marketing/unlawful diversion of prescription opioids."

The Reeses asked for equitable relief and medical monitoring to
identify developmental issues that will "almost inevitably appear
as they age," and fund services and treatment.

"Baby T.W.B.'s experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping
through the United States, including Illinois, that has caused
thousands of infants great suffering and continuing developmental
issues," the lawsuit says." This epidemic is the largest health
care crisis in U.S. history."

A similar lawsuit was filed in Louisiana on Feb. 27.

The pharmaceutical companies included in the lawsuit released the
following statements:

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: "We recognize opioid abuse and
addiction are serious public health issues, and are committed to
being part of the ongoing dialogue and to doing our part to find
ways to address this crisis.  Our actions in the marketing and
promotion of these medicines were appropriate and responsible.
The labels for our prescription opioid pain medicines provide
information about their risks and benefits, and the allegations
made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated. In
fact, our medications have some of the lowest rates of abuse
among this class of medications."

Purdue Pharma: "We are deeply troubled by the prescription and
illicit opioid abuse crisis, and we are dedicated to being part
of the solution.  As a company grounded in science, we must
balance patient access to FDA-approved medicines, while working
collaboratively to solve this public health challenge.  Although
our products account for less than 2 percent of the total opioid
prescriptions, as a company, we've distributed the CDC Guideline
for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, developed three of the
first four FDA-approved opioid medications with abuse-deterrent
properties and partner with law enforcement to ensure access to
naloxone.  We vigorously deny these allegations and look forward
to the opportunity to present our defense."

Allergan: "It is important to put into perspective Allergan's
role regarding opioids. Allergan's three legacy opioid products
-- Norco, Kadian and Fiorinal with Codeine -- account for less
than 0.04 percent of all opioid products prescribed in 2017 in
the U.S.  These products came to Allergan through legacy
acquisitions and have not been promoted since 2013, in the case
of Kadian and Fiorinal, and since 2003, in the case of Norco.
Allergan has a history of supporting -- and continues to support
-- the safe, responsible use of prescription medications.  This
includes opioid medications, which when prescribed and used
responsibly, play an appropriate role in pain relief for millions
of Americans."

Teva Pharmaceuticals: "Teva is committed to the appropriate use
of opioid medicines, and we recognize the critical public health
issues impacting communities across the U.S. as a result of
illegal drug use as well as the misuse and abuse of opioids that
are available legally by prescription.  To that end, we take a
multi-faceted approach to this complex issue; we work to educate
communities and healthcare providers on appropriate medicine use
and prescribing, we comply closely with all relevant federal and
state regulations regarding these medicines, and, through our R&D
pipeline, we are developing non-opioid treatments that have the
potential to bring relief to patients in chronic pain.  Teva also
collaborates closely with other stakeholders, including providers
and prescribers, regulators, public health officials and patient
advocates, to understand how to prevent prescription drug abuse
without sacrificing patients' needed access to pain medicine."

Endo Pharmaceuticals and Endo Health Solutions declined to
comment.

Amerisource, Cardinal Health and Johnson & Johnson did not
respond for comment. [GN]


JOSEPH K. JONES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winters" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Collection Solutions Inc. and Jeffrey A. Winters filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jeffrey
Winters, et al. v. Joseph Jones, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-09020,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case.

Plaintiff Collection Solutions, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation
that primarily provides debt collection services.  Plaintiff
Jeffrey Winters is the sole shareholder of Collection Solutions,
Inc.  Defendants Joseph Jones and Benjamin Wolf are attorneys who
practice at the firm of Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.  Defendant
Laura Mann is an attorney and the principal at the firm of Laura
S. Mann, LLC.  Defendants Ari Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman are
attorneys and the principals of the firm of Marcus & Zelman, LLC.

The Plaintiffs claim that "the particular actionable conduct
perpetrated by Defendants against Plaintiffs . . . was the class
action litigation . . . Juliette Chapa, et al[.] v[.] Charles I.
Turner Esq., and United Credit Specialists et al., in the Federal
District Court of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv-03125."  ("Chapa
Case").  The Plaintiffs settled the Chapa Case for $12,000 in
September 2016.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Chapa Case is
illustrative of Defendants' enterprise pursuant to The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") of joining
together to bring sham class action lawsuits against debt
collection agencies.

The Plaintiffs allege that at some point prior to 2013, the
Defendants formed a RICO enterprise that "avoided Small Claims
Courts or unprofitable immediate payment of nominal claims
without attorney's fees, by filing sham putative class actions in
Federal court en masse on theory that the vast majority of the
relatively deep-pocket defendants (mostly debt collection
companies) would view a quick settlement for under $100,000 as
basically a nuisance claim; with the rare contested case only
confirming to victim defendants the practical advisability of
settling early on a class basis."

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Winters, et al. v.
Joseph Jones, et al., Case No. 18-1226, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFFREY A. WINTERS and COLLECTION SOLUTIONS
INC., A New Jersey Corporation; on their own behalf and behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David M. Hoffman, Esq.
          28 Countryside Drive
          Baskin Ridge, NJ 07920
          Telephone: (908) 608-0333
          E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com

Defendants-Appellees JOSEPH K. JONES, ESQ.; BENJAMIN J. WOLF,
ESQ.; and JONES WOLF & KAPASI LLC are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Craig L. Steinfeld, Esq.
          Anthony J. Sylvester, Esq.
          SHERMAN WELLS SYLVESTER & STAMELMAN LLP
          210 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 302-9697
          E-mail: csteinfeld@shermanwells.com
                  asylvester@shermanwells.com

Defendants-Appellees LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN LLC and LAURA
S. MANN, ESQ., are represented by:

          Craig J. Compoli, Jr., Esq.
          O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU
          14 Village Park Road
          Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
          Telephone: (973) 239-5700
          E-mail: ccompoli@oslaw.com

               - and -

          Laura S. Mann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN, LLC
          85 Newark Pompton Turnpike
          Riverdale, NJ 07457
          Telephone: (973) 506-4881
          Facsimile: (973) 506-4883
          E-mail: laura@mannlegal.biz

Defendants-Appellees ARI H. MARCUS, YITZCHAK ZELMAN and MARCUS &
ZELMAN LLC are represented by:

          Meredith K. Stoma, Esq.
          MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN
          651 West Mount Pleasant Avenue, Suite 200
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 994-2500
          E-mail: mstoma@morganlawfirm.com


KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on February 26, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against Kraton Corporation
(NYSE:KRA).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is October 25, 2017 through
February 21, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Kraton
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than April 27, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


LIVE NATION: CA Launches Demanding Route 91 Harvest Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Malt, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that
lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit against Live Nation,
demanding that the company refund ticket monies to everyone who
attended the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas last year.
The closing night of the event saw the deadliest mass shooting in
US history occur, when a gunman killed 58 people and injured
hundreds of others when he opened fire from a nearby hotel.

The case was filed in Orange County, California. The legal team
involved argues that some people who privately requested a refund
received them, but there have been no moves to automatically pay
back all those who bought tickets.

The lawyer who filed the class action, Mark Robinson, Esq. who
was already representing a couple who were seeking a refund, told
Fox News: "We didn't think it was fair that some who privately
asked for refunds got them, when really everybody who bought a
ticket deserves a full refund".

Another lawyer working on the case, Craig Eiland, Esq. --
CEiland@eilandlaw.com -- elaborated further: "As we were
interviewing several hundred of our clients, we realised some had
received refunds and some had not. It didn't matter if they were
family members of deceased, gunshot victims or traumatised
because of the shooting and their escape. The only factor was
that those that heard about a refund through Facebook or friends
and demanded a refund, got it. So we decided to make one demand
on behalf of everyone".

If refunds across the board were achieved, that would create an
interesting challenge for anyone who bought a ticket on the
secondary market, in that the refund would presumably go to the
reseller not the person who actually attended the show.

Even if that issue could be addressed somehow, not everyone who
attended the event has welcomed the news of the new litigation.
Some have said that getting a refund is perhaps not the thing
that people should be focussing on in the continuing aftermath of
the shooting.

While all this is going on, new financial support has become
available to victims of the attack, and those affected by it. A
number of funds have already been set up, but a new organisation,
Route 91 Strong, made its first payments.

Co-founded by one of the survivors of the attack, Brian Claypool,
he tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the aim of the group
is to help those who do not meet the criteria of the other funds
currently in operation. "We're trying to help people who have
fallen through the cracks", he says.

Meanwhile, Tennessee's state government said that it believes
residents of the state who attended the festival may be eligible
to apply for support from the Nevada Crime Victim Compensation
scheme. It said that it was aware of 40 people who had bought
Route 91 Harvest tickets within Tennessee, as well as more who
attended as musicians or in other roles at the event.

The LA Times also reports that lawyers are still trying to
ascertain the value of the gunman's estate. A number of those
affected by the attack have already made legal moves to claim a
portion of this money. Some estimates have been as high as $5
million, although the court overseeing the estate heard that it
may actually be less than $1 million. A final figure is scheduled
to be reported back to the court on May 31. [GN]


LJM FUNDS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of shares of the LJM
Preservation and Growth Fund (MUTF: LJMAX, LJMCX, LJMIX) during
the period between February 28, 2015 and February 7, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). This action was filed in the Northern District
of Illinois and is captioned Nosewicz v. LJM Funds Management,
Ltd., et al., No. 18-cv-1589.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from February 9, 2018. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ljmfunds/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges LJM Funds Management, Ltd. ("LJM Funds"),
certain of its officers, Two Roads Shared Trust (the "Trust"),
the registrant for the offering of LJM Preservation and Growth
Fund (the "Preservation Fund" or "Fund") shares, and its
Trustees, and Northern Lights Distributors, LLC, the underwriter
and distributor for the shares, with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933. LJM Funds is the investment advisor to the
Preservation Fund, a mutual fund that was marketed to investors
seeking lower risk and moderate growth through a more
conservative volatility trading strategy that would preserve
capital and avoid the massive risks of aggressive hedge funds
seeking greater returns.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information in the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses (the "Offering
Materials") issued in connection with the sale of Preservation
Fund shares to investors. Specifically, contrary to defendants'
statements in the Offering Materials, including that the
objective of the Fund was to "seek[] capital appreciation and
capital preservation with low correlation to the broader U.S.
equity market" and to "preserve capital, particularly in down
markets (including major market drawdowns)," the Fund was not
focused on capital preservation and was overexposed to the risk
of volatility and a down market, as was demonstrated when the
value of Preservation Fund shares fell approximately 80% in just
two days as markets dropped and volatility spiked. While the Fund
purportedly sought to preserve capital and obtain growth by
betting against market volatility, the Fund actually made massive
and unmitigated bets that would expose investors to excessive
risks and catastrophic losses of capital, even in a moderate down
market of less than 5%. As a result of defendants' false
statements and/or omissions in the Offering Materials, the net
asset value ("NAV") of Preservation Fund shares was artificially
inflated to as high as $11.47 per share during the Class Period.

On February 5, 2018, while the Dow fell approximately 4.6% and
the S&P fell 4.1%, the NAV of Preservation Fund shares plunged
56%, from $9.67 per share to $4.27 per share. Then on February 6,
2018, the Dow and S&P increased by approximately 2% while the NAV
of Preservation Fund shares fell again, to $1.91 per share. Thus,
while the Dow and S&P suffered a modest downturn of just 2% over
two days, the Fund suffered a cumulative loss of approximately
80% of its value, erasing more than $600 million in just two
days.

On February 7, 2018, the Fund filed a notice with the SEC stating
that it was "closed to all new investments." On February 9, 2018,
LJM Funds sent a letter to Preservation Fund shareholders stating
that the Fund had been forced to close its open positions,
causing "additional substantial losses from Feb. 7's closing
prices." In an SEC filing dated February 27, 2018, LJM Funds and
the Trust announced that they had decided to liquidate and
dissolve the Fund.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
shares of the Fund during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class
action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller
attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities
litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins
Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it
also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please
visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
https://plus.google.com/+Rgrdlaw/posts

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel.No.:800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court OKs $2.95MM Attorney's Fees in "Nozzi"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned MICHAEL NOZZI, individually, and
NIDIA PELAEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES and RUDOLPH MONTIEL, Defendants, No. CV 07-380 PA (FFMx)
(C.D. Cal.).

Defendants will issue a check by overnight mail payable to the
JND Legal Administration:

   a. the total amount for valid claims made by Damages Class
Members and approved by the Class Administrator;

   b. $3,000 in incentive/individualized payments to Named
Plaintiffs Nidia Pelaez and Michael Nozzi;

   c. Defendants will pay all current outstanding bills from JND
Legal Administration. To the extent that the payments due to JND
cannot yet be finally determined because there is more work to be
done, Defendants will pay those amounts within 30 days of being
billed by JND.

The Damages Class consists of all HACLA Section 8 tenants,
between June 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, whose rental
contribution for a period not to exceed eleven months was greater
than it would have been but for HACLA's 2004 decrease in the VPS.

Defendants will issue a check to the Kaye, McLane, Bednarski &
Litt Client Trust Account in the amount of $2,957,382.80 as full
and final settlement of all past, present and future attorneys'
fees and all past, present and future ordinary and extraordinary
costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xzfte3 from
Leagle.com.

Michael Nozzi, an individual, Nidia Pelaez, an individual & Los
Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, a non-profit
organization, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Anne K. Richardson, Public
Counsel, Barrett S. Litt -- blitt@kmbllaw.com -- Kaye McLane
Bednarski and Litt LLP, Louis A. Rafti, Legal Aid Foundation of
Los Angeles, Stephanie Dominique Carroll, Public Counsel &
Stewart Chih-Ming Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles & Rudolph Montiel,
in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by Brant H.
Dveirin -- Brant.Dveirin@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Yangyang Li --
travis.li@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith
LLP.

Charles Jackson, Interested Party, pro se.


MARYVILLE UNIVERSITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maryville
University of Saint Louis. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan
Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Maryville University of Saint Louis, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02184 (S.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Maryville University of St. Louis is a private, coeducational
university located in the city of Town and Country, a suburb of
St. Louis in west St. Louis County, Missouri, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTIC HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Pagliaroni" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned  ANTHONY PAGLIARONI, VICKI
O'BRIEN, JOHN COSTELLO and CATHERINE LYNCH on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASTIC
HOME EXTERIORS, INC. and DECEUNINCK NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-10164-DJC (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs seek damages as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief from Defendants Mastic Home Exteriors (Mastic) and
Deceuninck North America (DNA) arising from damage to their decks
allegedly caused by a design defect in the Oasis decking formula.
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment and violation
of certain state consumer protection laws.

The Court grants summary judgment where there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the undisputed facts
demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

Statute of Limitations

Pagliaroni

Pagliaroni's Implied Warranty Claim Is Time-Barred

Mastic argues that Pagliaroni's claims for breach of implied and
express warranties are time-barred. DNA makes the same argument
for Pagliaroni's breach of implied warranty claim against it.
Plaintiffs counter that Pagliaroni's claims are not time-barred
because the limitations period was tolled by Mastic and DNA's
fraudulent concealment of its knowledge relating to Oasis's
susceptibility to premature cracking, pointing to Mastic testing
in December 2006 which revealed catastrophic failures in Oasis.
Claims for breach of warranty under Massachusetts law are subject
to a four-year statute of limitations under contract-based
theories, or three years for tort-based theories.

A contract-based breach of warranty claim accrues when the breach
occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of
the breach. Therefore, Pagliaroni's breach of implied warranty
claims accrued from the date of delivery in 2006 and expired
prior to the filing of the complaint in 2012. Accordingly, the
Court allows Defendant's motions as to Pagliaroni's implied
warranty claims against Mastic (Count II) and DNA (Count III) as
time-barred.

Pagliaroni's Breach of Express Warranty Claim Is Time-Barred

Pagliaroni was responding to a question confirming that he was
dissatisfied with the deck beginning in the summer of 2007, and
that such dissatisfaction included minor changes including
reduced gaps and a little bit of splitting by screws. This
distinction does not affect the undisputed fact that this defect,
whatever its extent as initially observed, was in 2007, which
means the claims began to accrue then.

Pagliaroni's claim is time barred. Accordingly, the Court allows
Mastic's motion as to Pagliaroni's breach of express warranty
claim (Count I).

O'Brien's Claims For Breach Of Implied Warranty Are Time-Barred

Defendants argue that O'Brien's claim for breach of implied
warranty should be dismissed as time-barred. Claims for breach of
implied warranty under Minnesota law are subject to a four-year
statute of limitations.  O'Brien joined the case in the second
amended complaint filed on May 29, 2013. A breach of implied
warranty occurs, and the claim accrues, 'when tender of delivery
is made.' Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that equitable tolling
or equitable estoppel apply for O'Brien's claim to survive.

Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, if a buyer delays
filing suit as a result of reasonable and detrimental reliance on
a seller's assurances it will repair the defective goods, the
limitations period is tolled during that period of delay.
Plaintiffs fails to establish equitable estoppel here. The
generalized puffery that Plaintiffs point to in the marketing
materials by Mastic or DNA are not equivalent to the
individualized post-purchase and post-defect communications
necessary for equitable estoppel.  Furthermore, Plaintiffs have
not shown that O'Brien's decision not to file suit was made in
reliance on those materials.  Accordingly, O'Brien's claim is not
tolled by equitable estoppel.

Accordingly, the Court allows both motions as to O'Brien's claims
for breach of implied warranty against Mastic (Count II) and DNA
(Count III) as these claims are time-barred.

Lynch

Lynch's Claims For Breach Of Implied Warranty Are Time-Barred

Defendants argues that Lynch's claims for breach of implied
warranty should be dismissed as time-barred. Claims for breach of
implied warranty under New York law are subject to a four-year
statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs have not offered any reason why 2007 should not be
considered as the year Lynch's claim began to accrue.
Accordingly, the Court allows Mastic's motion as to Lynch's claim
for breach of implied warranty (Count II) and allows DNA's motion
as to same (Count III) as time-barred.

Lynch's Consumer Protection Claim Is Time-Barred

Claims brought under GBL 349 are subject to a three-year statute
of limitations. Lynch received her decking six years before
filing suit. Furthermore, even if the Court considered the
gravamen of Lynch's claim to have arisen when she noticed
cracking in 2009, the claim would still be time-barred.
Accordingly, the Court allows Mastic's motion as to Lynch's GBL
349 claim (Count XI) as time-barred.

Costello's Breach of Implied Warranty Claim as to Mastic Survives

In this case, the injury supporting Costello's claim began to run
when Costello became aware of deterioration in March 2009, mold
growth in April 2009 and cracking and discoloration in his Oasis
decking in or about March 2010. Plaintiffs point to 2011 as a
later time when Costello observed more substantial failures in
the decking, when they argue the limitations period began to run.
Similar to the analysis under Massachusetts law, the discovery
rule under Oregon law does not consider the extent of subsequent
damage, but presence of observable damage that puts plaintiff on
notice of the injury and the reasonable capability to investigate
and discover the defendant's role in the damage.

However, the record on this point is too bare to conclude that
there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Costello could
have or should have inquired who manufactured his Oasis decking
earlier than he did. While DNA points to Ply Gem's response to
Costello's warranty claim in 2012, in which Mastic referred
Costello to a representative of DNA, providing contact
information for DNA, that does not resolve the dispute about
whether Costello's inquiry was reasonable upon discovering the
defect.
Even if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Costello's duty to investigate had been triggered, and whether
that investigation would have revealed DNA's association with the
harm to his deck, DNA's motion for summary judgment as to
Costello's claim for breach of implied warranty under Count III
succeeds because of lack of showing of privity as discussed
below.
Costello's Privity with Mastic and DNA

Both Mastic and DNA argue that Costello's claim for breach of
implied warranty fails because he purchased his Oasis decking
through a contractor from another distributor, ABC Suppliers, not
Mastic.

As to DNA, there is no privity between an ultimate purchaser and
a manufacturer where the property was not purchased directly from
the manufacturer but through an intermediate seller. Plaintiffs
point to Mastic and DNA's Sales and Distribution Agreement and
the deposition testimony of Scott Ricke, as evidence of a direct
relationship that establishes privity because ABC Suppliers was a
"valid" distributor for Mastic, thereby establishing a link.
However, ABC Suppliers' role as a sub-distributor for Mastic
makes it an intermediate seller, for whom DNA did not honor the
express warranty and privity with the manufacturer is obviated.

Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS DNA's motion as to Costello's
claims for breach of implied warranty (Count III).

The question as to Mastic turns on any agency relationship
between Mastic and ABC Suppliers. Oregon law defines an agency
relationship as a fiduciary relationship that arises when one
person (a 'principal') manifests assent to another person (an
'agent') that the agent shall act on the principal's behalf and
subject to the principal's control. The record appears only to
reveal that ABC Suppliers was the seller, but no evidence that
would establish as a matter of law that this distributor
relationship was less than an agency relationship. On this
record, there remains a question of fact as to whether Mastic and
ABC Suppliers had an agency relationship establishing privity.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mastic's motion as to Costello's
breach of implied warranty claim (Count II).

Lynch, O'Brien and Costello's Express Warranty Claims Against
Mastic Survive

Mastic argues that Lynch, O'Brien and Costello's express warranty
claims seek additional monetary remedies beyond a refund of their
costs relating to their Oasis decking and that the Limited
Warranty made replacement product or refund of the value of the
products" the exclusive remedy.

Under Oregon, New York and Minnesota law, all following the
Uniform Commercial Code, unless circumstances cause an exclusive
or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, a seller of
goods may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under
this Article" by limiting the remedies to return of the goods and
repayment of the price or repair and replacement. A remedy fails
of its essential purpose if the circumstances existing at the
time of the agreement have changed so that enforcement of the
limited remedy would essentially leave plaintiff with no remedy
at all.
In this case, Lynch, O'Brien and Costello were all aware of the
Limited Warranty's existence and submitted claims under the
Limited Warranty,

O'Brien's Statutory Claims Fail

Mastic argues that Counts IX (O'Brien's claim under Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act (MUTPA)) and X (O'Brien's claim
under Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act (MFSAA)) both
fail because neither statute provides a private right of action.
In this case, however, O'Brien has not established that her claim
serves a public interest. Courts considering this question have
not extended private standing under to plaintiffs who seek only
monetary damages relating to products that are no longer sold,
advertised or otherwise at risk of affecting the public.

Here, Mastic has discontinued sales or marketing of Oasis
decking. Moreover, here where the Court has previously denied
class certification, any relief will not serve a larger swath of
the public, but only O'Brien. Accordingly, the Court allows
Mastic's motion as to O'Brien's claims under the MUTPA and MFSAA
(Counts X and XI).

The Court allows in part and denies in part Mastic's motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qbuqxz
from Leagle.com.

Anthony D Pagliaroni, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bonnie Prober --
bprober@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and Laduca, pro hac vice,
Brendan Thompson -- brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, Clayton D.
Halunen -- halunen@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen & Associates, pro
hac vice, Katherine Van Dyck -- kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO
GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Evan Miller --
mmiller@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Melissa S.
Weiner -- weiner@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert Kinney Shelquist -- rshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, pro hac vice, Scott A. Moriarity --
samoriarity@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindel & Nauen PLLP, pro
hac vice, Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, William H. Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilber & Laduca, LLP, pro hac
vice & Kate R. Isley, Attorney General's Office.

Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine
S. Kayatta -- kkayatta@pierceatwood.com --  Pierce Atwood LLP,
Nicholas Paul Brown -- nbrown@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood
LLP, Donald R. Frederico -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce
Atwood LLP, Gavin G. McCarthy -- gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com --
Pierce Atwood LLP & Kate R. Isley, Attorney General's Office.
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine S.
Kayatta, Pierce Atwood LLP, Donald R. Frederico, Pierce Atwood
LLP, Gavin G. McCarthy, Pierce Atwood LLP & Kate R. Isley,
Attorney General's Office.

Deceuninck North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian A.
Troyer -- Troyer@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, pro hac
vice, David A. Wilson -- David.Wilson@ThompsonHine.com --
Thompson Hine LLP, Matthew D. Ridings --
Matt.Ridings@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, pro hac vice
& William J. Hubbard -- Bill.Hubbard@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson
Hine LLP, pro hac vice.

Exponent, Inc., Objector, represented by Lisa M. Tittemore --
ltittemore@sunsteinlaw.com -- Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
& Brandon T. Scruggs -- bscruggs@sunsteinlaw.com -- Sunstein Kann
Murphy & Timbers LLP.

Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Donald R. Frederico, Pierce Atwood LLP, Gavin G. McCarthy, Pierce
Atwood LLP, Kate R. Isley, Attorney General's Office & Shawn J.
Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice.

Deceuninck North America, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brian A. Troyer, Thompson Hine LLP, pro hac vice & Shawn J.
Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice.

Deceuninck North America, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by
Brian A. Troyer, Thompson Hine LLP, pro hac vice, David A.
Wilson, Thompson Hine LLP & Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak
& Wanta LLP, pro hac vice.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Class Action Trial Ends in Defense Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Los Angeles Superior Court found that Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Co. ("MassMutual") did not improperly
withhold dividends from a class of hundreds of term life
insurance policyholders.  The jury sided with the insurer and
found that the policies in question never generated enough profit
to warrant dividends under the policy agreements.

In Christina Chavez v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
after deliberations following a 12-day trial, the jury rejected
named plaintiff Christina Chavez's claims that the insurer had
breached its contracts with hundreds of people who had purchased
participating 20-year term life insurance, or T20G policies, from
2000 to 2004 in the Los Angeles area.

As a mutual insurance company owned by its policyholders,
MassMutual pays out its excess profits to "participating"
policyholders each year in the form of dividends.  Chavez filed
suit in April 2010, and in her trial brief contended that as part
of the language of the participating life insurance policies, the
insurer was mandated to annually determine those policies'
contributions to the company's excess profits, or "divisible
surplus," and return their fair share in a dividend.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff attorney claimed that the
company had dodged its duties by refusing to actually do the math
and determine if the T20G policies were entitled to dividends
each year, asserting that MassMutual actually owed the class a
total of $717,000 in dividends.  The jury sided with the insurer
in holding the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the policies
actually generated such profits.

Jennifer Keller of Keller Anderle LLP, representing MassMutual,
defended the company during closing arguments by focusing on
Chavez's actuarial expert Tom Bakos, explaining to the jury that
Bakos had manipulated the financial numbers to show a profit on
the T20G policies, which actually had not come close to
surpassing a 5 percent profit, the threshold over which dividends
were payable, she said.  "The Tom Bakoses of the world can
probably find any mutual life insurance policy anywhere in the
world and pick it apart . . . and can find somewhere in there
some numbers to manipulate," she said.  Sean Commons of Sidley
Austin was second chair at the trial.

         Contact:
         Kay Anderle, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Ph. 949.476.8700
         Fax 949.476.0900
         Email: kanderle@kelleranderle.com  [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Maestri" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Justin Maestri, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01070-WSD (N.D. Ga., March 14, 2018).

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is engaged in the marketing and
distribution of Mercedes-Benz, smart, and Sprinter vehicles in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com

      - and -

   G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-9594
   Fax: (770) 444-0271
   Email: flemond@webbllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Jamnadas" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Haresh Jamnadas, on behalf
of himself individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01495 (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates in the debt collection
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
   Fagenson & Puglisi
   450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
   New York, NY 10123
   Tel: (212) 268-2128
   Fax: (212) 268-2127
   Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Moore" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding
LLC. The case is styled as Candice Moore, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Funding
LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01470 (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding
LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Witt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Funding
LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01468 (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MIMEDX GROUP: Bragar Eagel & Squire Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired MiMedx Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MDXG)
securities between March 7, 2013 and February 19, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until April 25, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 20, 2018, MiMedx announced that it will postpone the
release of its financial results, as well as the filing of its
Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2017. This raised
further concerns over the reports of short sellers who had
accused MiMedx of "serious and pervasive fraud." Following this
news, the stock price of MiMedx fell $5.72 per share, or over
39%, to close at $8.75 per share on February 20, 2018

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that (i) MiMedx was engaged in a "channel-stuffing"
scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue that had not
yet been realized; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting; and (iii) that as a result of
the foregoing, MiMedx's publicly disseminated financial
statements were materially false and misleading.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired MiMedx 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 MiMedx Group, Inc. lawsuit,
please go to http://www.bespc.com/mimedx.For additional
information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to
www.bespc.com.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email:  walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


MIMEDX GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of MiMedx Group, Inc. (NasdaqCM: MDXG) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 between March 7, 2013 and February 19, 2018. MiMedx, a
biopharmaceutical company, develops and markets regenerative
biologics utilizing human placental tissue allografts with
patent-protected processes for various sectors of healthcare.

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

MiMedx Accused of Engaging in Fraudulent Revenue Scheme

According to the complaint, in December 2016, two former MiMedx
employees filed a complaint against the company alleging MiMedx
fired them for reporting fraudulent revenue recognition
practices. The employees alleged that MiMedx inappropriately
recorded sales of products that hadn't yet been filled --
otherwise known as channel stuffing -- in order to fraudulently
recognize revenue in its financial statements before the revenue
had been realized and earned. On February 20, 2018, after months
of denying that it had engaged in a fraudulent revenue scheme,
MiMedx revealed that it hired legal and accounting advisors to
conduct an internal investigation regarding certain sales and
distribution practices at the company. As a result, the company
postponed the release of its financial results and the filing of
its 2017 Form 10-K. On this news, MiMedx's stock plunged over 39%
to close at $8.75 per share on February 20, 2018, and continues
to decline.

MiMedx Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, 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.

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


MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 25, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in securities class action lawsuits against MiMedx
Group Inc. (NasdaqCM: MDXG), if they purchased the Company's
securities between the expanded period of March 7, 2013 and
February 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). These actions
are pending in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Georgia and Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of MiMedx and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-mdxg/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 25, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

MiMedx and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On February 20, 2018, MiMedx revealed it postponed its 2017
earnings report and "engaged independent legal and accounting
advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and
prior-period matters relating to allegations regarding certain
sales and distribution practices." Then, on February 22, 2018,
media reports revealed that MiMedx had "financial ties to more
than 20 doctors" that it had not disclosed to the government,
which MiMedx claimed was not required.

On this news, the price of MiMedx's shares plummeted.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com  [GN]


MIRAMED REVENUE: "Costin" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Fawn Costin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MiraMed Revenue Group, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Case No. 18-at-00345 (S.D. Ind.,
February 6, 2018) seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Miramed attempted to collect defaulted consumer debts that Costin
allegedly owed for medical bills allegedly owed to Franciscan
Health Indianapolis. Defendants sent a collection letter that
failed to mention that the debt was time-barred even threatening
to credit report these time-barred debts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             carissa@philippslegal.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Kawelo" Suit in D. Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as George Kaulana Kawelo, III and Rina
Cecily Kawelo, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC,
Peter Stone, Attorney, Individually, Derek W.C. Wong, Attorney,
Individually, Jason L. Cotton, Attorney, Individually, TMLF
Hawaii, LLLC, a Law Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as the Mortgage
Servicer, MTGLQ Investors, LP, Zachary K. Kondo, Attorney,
Individually, Aldridge Pite, LLP, a Limited Law Partnership,
Akoni Shannon, All Entity or Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal
or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the
Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff Title,
or Any Cloud on Plaintiffs' Title Thereto and All Whose True
Names are Unknown, Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00096-DKW-KSC (D. Hawaii, March 14, 2018).

Nationstar Mortgage LLC provides mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEW PRIME: Truckers' Class Action Moves to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------
As we await the Supreme Court's decision on the enforceability of
class action waivers, the Court has accepted certiorari on
another arbitration-related case, this one relating to the
application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to the trucking
industry. The U.S. Supreme Court on February 26 granted the
certiorari petition of trucking company New Prime, Inc., in a
case that raised two important arbitration issues in the context
of an independent contractor agreement in the trucking industry.
See New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. In its petition, New
Prime, Inc., sought review of two questions:

First, whether a dispute over the application of the FAA's
Section 1 exemption for "contracts of employment of seamen,
railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce" is an arbitrability issue that
must be determined in arbitration based on a valid delegation
clause.

Second, whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies only
to "contracts of employment," is applicable to independent
contractor agreements. We previously discussed the lower court's
decision in this important case.

The Case Below

In Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7 (May 12, 2017), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had confronted two
arbitration-related questions of first impression in that
circuit. In the case, Dominic Oliveira had signed an Independent
Contractor Operating Agreement with New Prime, Inc., which
contained an arbitration provision governed by the Commercial
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Believing he was underpaid as an independent contractor, Oliveira
stopped driving but later was rehired by the same entity as a
company driver. Oliveira contends that his job duties as a
company driver and an independent contractor were "substantially
identical."

Oliveira eventually filed a class and collective action against
the company based upon the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri minimum-wage statute for failing to pay drivers the
minimum wage. He also brought a class claim for breach of
contract or unjust enrichment and an individual claim under
Maine's labor statutes. The company moved, in part, to compel
arbitration under the FAA. The district court denied the motion
to compel, concluding that the application of Section 1 of the
FAA, exempting contracts of employment of transportation workers
from the operation of the statute, was for the court, not an
arbitrator. But the court found that discovery was needed to
determine if Oliveira was an employee or an independent
contractor before the court could determine whether the contract
was covered by Section 1. Hence, the district court denied the
motion to compel without prejudice, and the company appealed.

The First Circuit first considered whether, when ruling on a
motion to compel arbitration under the FAA where the parties have
delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the court
must decide the application of the FAA or grant the motion and
let the arbitrator decide. In an opinion authored by Circuit
Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, the First Circuit held that the
application of the FAA is a threshold question (or an "antecedent
determination") for the court, not a question of arbitrability.

Second, the appellate court had to resolve whether Section 1 of
the FAA, exempting contracts of transportation workers, applies
to a transportation-related agreement that nominally creates an
independent-contractor relationship. The court answered this
second question by finding that Section 1 applied to the
relationship, and affirmed the district court's order denying the
motion to compel arbitration.

As to the first question, the court reasoned that whether Section
1 was applicable did not require an analysis of the parties'
agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration, but instead raised
the separate issue of the district court's authority to act under
the FAA. The First Circuit was unpersuaded by the Eighth Circuit
decision in Green v. SuperShuttle International, Inc., 653 F.3d
766, 769 (8th Cir. 2011), which found that whether the Section 1
exemption applied was a question of arbitrability for the
arbitrator when the parties delegated such questions to the
arbitrator.

In resolving the second question, the court attempted to analyze
the text of the FAA in its historic context as its point of
departure. It concluded:

. . . the combination of the ordinary meaning of the phrase
"contracts of employment" and [the Company's] concession that
Oliveira is a transportation worker compels the conclusion that
the contract in this case is excluded from the FAA's reach.
Because the contract is an agreement to perform work of a
transportation worker, it is exempt from the FAA. We therefore
decline to follow the lead of those courts that have simply
assumed that contracts that establish or purport to establish
independent-contractor relationships are not "contracts of
employment" within the meaning of Sec 1.

The appellate court was also unmoved by the language in Circuit
City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 118 (2001), which
advised that the Section 1 exemptions should "be afforded a
narrow construction," finding its context made it
distinguishable. Nor was the court persuaded by arguments based
on the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, which in its
view did not overcome the statute's plain text. Ultimately, the
appellate court found the exemption applied to independent
contractor agreements:

. . . a careful examination of the ordinary meaning of the phrase
"contracts of employment" . . . supports our conclusion that the
phrase means agreement to perform work and includes independent-
contractor agreements. The federal policy favoring arbitration
cannot erase this plain meaning.

Given the impact of this court's historically based "plain
meaning" construction, further analysis at the Supreme Court
level seems likely. And as Judge Paul J. Barbadoro recognized in
his concurring and dissenting opinion: "Not only do we face a
hard question -- given that the contemporary meaning of Sec 1's
language may differ from its meaning when adopted -- but we do so
without the aid of a well-developed district court record." That
"hard question" will now be addressed by the Supreme Court.

In its Petition, New Prime maintained that the First Circuit
opinion "deepens the division among the federal courts of appeals
on important questions of law regarding the scope and
applicability of the exemption contained in Section 1 of the
FAA." (Petition at 6). Indeed, the appellate decision would
apparently deprive both companies and workers in the
transportation industry of the benefits of the FAA and leave them
to the vicissitudes of state arbitration law.

Bottom Line:

The Supreme Court will now resolve who decides the FAA exemption
and Section 1's coverage of independent contractors in the
transportation industry. If, in the process, greater clarity is
brought to the meaning of Section 1's seemingly broad language,
that would be helpful for many industries. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Sunroof Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied remaining defendant Nissan
North America, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
SHERIDA JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs, purchasers of Nissan vehicles with panoramic
sunroofs, allege that the panoramic sunroofs installed in their
vehicles spontaneously shatter and that Nissan refuses to repair,
replace, or otherwise compensate plaintiffs with respect to these
explosions, despite the warranties.

Nissan moves to dismiss plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
MMWA claim, Spry's breach of express warranty claim, Sullivan and
Ahren's implied warranty of merchantability claims, and Spry,
Sullivan, and Ahrens' consumer-fraud claims.

Whether Plaintiffs Must Allege They Satisfied the MMWA's Informal
Dispute Settlement Requirements

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' MMWA claims because
plaintiffs do not allege that they satisfied the Act's informal
dispute settlement requirements.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Nissan's warranty contained such
informal dispute settlement procedures, nor that they failed to
follow the warranty procedure prior to filing suit. Instead,
plaintiffs allege that following Nissan's informal dispute
settlement procedures would have been futile and that they have
no obligation to allege in their complaint that they followed
every warranty procedure because they have no obligation to make
allegations anticipating Nissan's affirmative defenses.

Even if plaintiffs were required to make such allegations, the
SAC contains sufficient allegations to draw the reasonable
inference that following Nissan's warranty procedures would have
been futile. Plaintiffs allege that Nissan has repeatedly failed
to disclose the panoramic sunroof defect or provide repairs at no
cost and, therefore, has indicated no desire to participate in
such a process at this time. Named plaintiffs specifically allege
that after their panoramic sunroofs shattered, they each
contacted Nissan dealers or Nissan directly, but Nissan refused
to cover the damage under the warranty.   Plaintiffs also allege
that at least 105 Nissan vehicle owners reported an incident of
their sunroof shattering to NHTSA and that Nissan has long known
that its panoramic sunroofs are prone to unexpected and dangerous
shatterin.

Given these allegations and the level of detail provided in the
SAC, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged futility at this stage
of the proceedings. Nissan's MMWA exhaustion defense is better
suited to be addressed at summary judgment.

Whether Spry Sufficiently Alleges a Claim for Express Warranty

Spry purchased her vehicle in February of 2013, and her panoramic
sunroof shattered in October of 2016, more than 36 months later.
Nissan's warranty provides "basic coverage" for 36 months or
36,000 miles, whichever comes first. While Spry argues that she
had an extended warranty, she provides no factual allegations
regarding the coverage period or terms of this warranty. Instead,
in Count 12 for breach of express warranty, she mentions only the
standard warranty: Nissan provided an express New Vehicle Limited
Warranty (NVLW) for a period of three years or 36,000 miles,
whichever occurs first then alleges that she "experienced defects
within the warranty period.

The Court find Spry's breach of express warranty claim
insufficient as a matter of law, and the Court dismisses Count 12
of the SAC.

Whether Plaintiffs' Florida and Illinois Breach of Implied
Warranty Claims Require Privity

Nissan next moves to dismiss the Florida and Illinois breach of
implied warranty of merchantability claims for lack of privity.
Plaintiffs Sullivan and Ahrens argue first that they allege that
they are in actual or constructive privity with Nissan because
"Nissan extended express written warranties to end-user
purchasers and lessees, and had sufficient direct dealings" with
plaintiffs to establish any required privity of contract.

Plaintiffs next argue that even if they are not in privity with
Nissan, privity is not required because they are third-party
beneficiaries of Nissan's contracts with its dealers. Nissan
argues that neither Florida nor Illinois recognizes this
exception to privity in implied warranty claims.

Whether Florida Law Requires Privity of Contract for Breach of
Implied Warranty

Sullivan depends on Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52
F.Supp.3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014), a federal case that recognized
the third-party beneficiary exception, relying on another federal
case from Louisiana that in turn cited a Florida case arising in
a different context. Sullivan also cites several Florida cases,
the most recent of which is from 1984, that recognize certain
exceptions to privity in various contexts. Because the weight of
the authority from modern Florida courts is consistent, however,
the Court decline to follow Sanchez-Knutson, and instead follow
the Florida courts' clear guidance that Florida law does not
recognize this exception. For these reasons, Sullivan's breach of
implied warranty claim in Count 14 is dismissed.

Whether Illinois Law Requires Privity of Contract for Breach of
Implied Warranty

While Ahrens cites to another federal case recognizing the third-
party beneficiary exception to privity under Illinois law, the
Court again declines to follow that court's reasoning because
Illinois state courts are clear on Illinois law. Thus, Ahrens may
not argue that she is a third-party beneficiary of Nissan's
contracts with its dealers; Illinois law recognizes no such
exception to the privity requirement.  For these reasons, Ahrens'
breach of implied warranty claim in Count 16 is also dismissed.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Nissan's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  Counts 10, 12, 14,
15, and 16 are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwowbdr from Leagle.com.

Sherida Johnson & Subrina Seenarain, Plaintiffs, represented by
Crystal Gayle Foley -- cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Adam A. Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg
Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Lisa A. White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Mark E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC,
pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com --
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul J. Hanly --
phanly@simmonsfirm.com Jr. -- Simmons Hanly Conry LLC.

Chad Loury, Linda Spry, Lisa Sullivan & April Ahrens, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC,
Mitchell M. Breit, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul J. Hanly, Jr.,
Simmons Hanly Conry LLC.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amir M.
Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com., Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Andrew
L. Chang achang@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Holly
Pauling Smith -hpsmith@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, pro
hac vice & Mr. William Roth Sampson, Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP,
pro hac


NYP HOLDINGS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYP Holdings, Inc.
doing business as: New York Post. The case is styled as Phillip
Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NYP Holdings, Inc. doing business as: New
York Post, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02131 (S.D. N.Y., March 9,
2018).

NYP Holdings, Inc. provides online and print news.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHR PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Firm Files 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Ohr") (NASDAQ:OHRP)
securities between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/ohr-pharmaceutical-inc?wire=3. 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) Ohr's lead product Squalamine would
not produce vision improvements and was commercially not viable;
and (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about Ohr's business, operations, and prospects were misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Ohr you have until April 16, 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-c/ohr-
pharmaceutical-inc?wire=3.

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

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


PACIFIC FERTILITY: Faces "S.M." Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Fertility
Center. The case is styled as S. M., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Fertility
Center and Prelude Fertility, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01586 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2018).

Pacific Fertility Center Los Angeles is a highly advanced
fertility clinic with offices in Glendale and Los Angeles,
CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam E. Polk, Esq.
   Girard Gibbs LLP
   601 California Street, 14th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 981-4800
   Fax: (415) 981-4846
   Email: aep@girardgibbs.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: US Court Preliminarily OKs Terms Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a U.S. federal court preliminarily approved
on February 28 the terms of a $3 billion class action settlement
Brazilian state oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA reached with
U.S. shareholders in January, the firm said in a March 1
securities filing.

The company said a judge will assess potential objections to the
accord at a hearing scheduled for June 1.

In early January, Petrobras, as the company is known, agreed to
pay $2.95 billion to U.S. shareholders due to corruption-related
losses, in what was said to be the biggest such payout in the
United States by a foreign entity. That number could be slightly
higher due to legal and administrative fees. [GN]


PLANET SMOOTHIE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Smoothie
Franchises L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Planet Smoothie Franchises L.L.C. and
Kahala Franchising L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01473
(E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Planet Smoothie is home to the best-tasting smoothies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel:(212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


POLITICO LLC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Politico LLC. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Politico LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02255 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018).

Politico, known earlier as The Politico, is an American political
journalism company based in Arlington County, Virginia, that
covers politics and policy in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Manfredi" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Daryl Manfredi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01571-DRH-SIL (E.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018).

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


QUANTUM CORP: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Quantum Corporation
(NYSE: QTM) who purchased shares between May 10, 2016 and
February 7, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Quantum had
inappropriately accounted for revenue relating to certain
transactions commencing April 1, 2016; (ii) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Quantum's publicly disseminated
financial statements were materially false and misleading. On
February 8, 2018, Quantum disclosed that in January of 2018, the
Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange
Commission related to revenue recognition for certain
transactions, prompting an internal investigation by Quantum,
which remains ongoing. As a result, the Company announced that it
"is postponing release of its fiscal third quarter 2018 results
and its earnings conference call."

Shareholders have until April 16, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/quantum-corporation?wire=2.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation.

         Joseph Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Tel: 212-616-4899
         Fax: 347-558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


RICARDO AND SUSAN GARCIA: "Hill" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Hill, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Ricardo and Susan Garcia LLC
(d/b/a Eclectix Coffee Bar and Bakery) and Susan Garcia, Case No.
18-cv-00036, (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2018), seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Eclectix is a coffee bar and bakery in Corpus Christi, Texas
where Hill routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
but was denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:


      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


RICK BUTLER: Sued Over Alleged Sexual Abuse Cover-up
----------------------------------------------------
Carly DeMarque, writing for Volley Mob, reports that after it was
thought to be over being expelled from every major volleyball
organization in the country, Rick Butler has another lawsuit
against him.

Laura Mullen has pressed a class-action lawsuit against Butler.
Mullen is contending that Butler, his wife and club covered up a
number of serious sexual abuse and misconduct allegations made
against him over many years. This included Butler and his wife
pressuring assault victims to remain silent and threatening them
with negative consequences if they did not comply.

The case has been picked up by Jay Edelson, Esq. --
jedelson@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC, who will be representing
Mullen pro bono.

This saga began back in the 1980s when the abuse of at least four
players took place but was not spoken out about until 1995. In
1995, Butler was banned from USA Volleyball because of the
allegations, but this was lifted just five years later with the
stipulation that Butler never coach a youth team through the
organization ever again. This ban, however, did not stop Butler
from being able to coach youth players through the AAU.

Sarah Powers-Barnhard was one of the victims to speak out against
Butler, setting up the original lawsuit. Her first attempt at the
lawsuit was flawed but fixed in time for a January 2018 meeting
that would decide his fate. Because of this lawsuit, USA
Volleyball confirmed the lifetime ban of Butler from the
organization. Following suit, the AAU and Junior Volleyball
Association (an organization he helped to form), banned him as
well.

This ban has had considerable repercussions for Butler and his
facilities, with the University of Wisconsin and Marquette
University canceling their spring matches from his Great Lakes
Volleyball Center. Additionally, USA Badminton also moved one of
their national tournaments from his Aurora gym. [GN]


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until April 18, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in  securities class action lawsuits
against Riot Blockchain, Inc. (NasdaqCM: RIOT), if they purchased
the Company's securities between the expanded period of October
4, 2017 and February 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
These actions are pending in the United States District Courts
for the Districts of New Jersey, Colorado and Southern District
of Florida.

Get Help

Riot investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-riot-blockchain-inc-fka-
bioptix-inc-securities-litigation or call to speak to our claim
center toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                        About the Lawsuit

Riot and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions
include, but are not limited to, that: (i) Riot's principle
executive offices were located in Florida, not Colorado, and in
the same location as a significant shareholder who previously
worked with Riot's CEO John O'Rouke (ii) Riot did not intend on
holding its Annual Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and
February 1, 2018; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions
of dollars from securities class action settlements.
ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action
landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to
ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial
instruments. [GN]


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Riot Blockchain, Inc. ("Riot Blockchain")
(NASDAQ:RIOT) between October 4, 2017 and February 15, 2018. You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/riot-blockchain-inc?wire=3

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) despite statements to the contrary,
Riot Blockchain's principle executive offices were not in
Colorado, but rather in Florida in the same location as
shareholder Barry C. Honig, who had a previous working
relationship with CEO and Chairman John O'Rouke; (2) Riot
Blockchain never intended to hold its Annual General Meetings
scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1, 2018; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' statements about Riot's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Riot Blockchain you have until April
18, 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 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]


SAFEGUARDCASUALTY: "Henderson" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Henderson, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARDCASUALTY.COM Inc., Case No. 18-
cv-60258 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive
relief and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
actual and statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Safeguard is an auto insurance agency that maintains its
corporate headquarters at 9996 Pines Blvd, Pembroke Pines,
Broward County, FL 33034. In an effort to solicit business,
Safeguard repeatedly placed phone calls, without consent, to
Henderson's cellular telephones while using automatic telephone
dialing equipment having the capacity to store and dial telephone
numbers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
      Ross A. Appel (FBN 90865)
      KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
      4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 842-2021
      Fax: (954) 416-6223
      Email: eck@komlossylaw.com
             raa@komlossylaw.com

             - and -

      Alexis M .Wood, Esq.
      Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Tel: (619) 696-9006
      Fax: (619) 564-6665
      Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
             kas@consumersadvocates.com


SANIMAX USA: Faces "Keech" Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanimax USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Patricia Keech and David Newfield, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sanimax USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-
00683-JRT-HB (D. Minn., March 12, 2018).

Sanimax USA LLC was founded in 2009. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of non-durable
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey S Storms, Esq.
   Newmark Storms Law Office
   100 South Fifth Street, Suite 2000
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 455-7050
   Fax: (612) 455-7051
   Email: jeff@newmarkstorms.com


SCANA CORP: Judge Rules Electric Customers' Lawsuits Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thad Moore and Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier,
reports that South Carolina electric customers can sue SCANA
Corp. for refunds over a pair of abandoned nuclear reactors, a
judge has ruled, rejecting the utility's efforts to dismiss a
collection of lawsuits filed against it.

SCANA, the Cayce-based owner of South Carolina Electric & Gas,
wanted to settle the multibillion-dollar question of who pays for
the reactors outside of a courtroom.

During a hearing in January, the power company argued that state
regulators, not judges, should resolve disputes about electric
rates.

Circuit Judge John Hayes III disagreed, rebuking SCANA with a
decision issued March 1 that keeps a legal cloud hanging over the
embattled utility.

SCANA owned more than half of a massive effort to expand the V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station north of Columbia. That project cost
roughly $9 billion before it was called off in July.

The question of who should pick up SCANA's roughly $5 billion tab
has roiled South Carolina ever since. Regulators are expected to
hear arguments later this year and the Legislature is considering
a slate of proposals that could stick SCANA with the bill.

Hayes' decision means the courts will have a hand in that
process, too.

While regulators and lawmakers remain focused on what customers
should pay in the future, the courts can decide questions about
what they've paid in the past, the order says.

Those are enormous questions: SCE&G customers pay $37 million a
month for the reactors -- about a fifth of their monthly bills --
and they have paid about $2 billion over the past decade.

Hayes' order also says the courts could decide whether customers
are entitled to money from a billion-dollar settlement SCANA
reached with the project's contractor. The courts, Hayes said,
can also rule on whether it's constitutional for a utility to
charge ratepayers for an unfinished project.

SCANA was given that right by the 2007 Base Load Review Act, a
law that faces constitutional questions from the state attorney
general and others who contend the builders never met their
obligations. The state's Solicitor General Bob Cook participated
in the circuit court hearing in January.

"We have always maintained that the BLRA is unconstitutional, and
we firmly believe the ratepayers should have their day in court,"
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Esq. said in a prepared statement.

Some of the legal questions were raised by five lawsuits -- all
seeking class-action status -- filed last year on behalf of
customers. The cases are being heard together.

"We will continue to press forward to hold the company
accountable," said Ed Bell, a Georgetown attorney who brought one
of the lawsuits, in a statement.

"It's just plain wrong to charge ratepayers well into the future
for the company's failure," he added.

The cases could also impact SCANA's plans to merge with Dominion
Energy, a Virginia-based utility giant. Dominion agreed to buy
the company earlier this year in a deal worth $14.6 billion, with
an offer of partial refunds and rate reductions.

But under the plan, Dominion would still charge customers for the
scuttled project for the next 20 years. An order cutting off
payments for the nuclear project would kill the merger if it's
handed down before the deal closes.

In a statement, SCANA suggested that was a better option than
seeking refunds in court, because attorneys' fees would cut into
customer refunds.

Dominion has offered to refund about two-thirds of the money
customers have already paid, in part by using settlement funds
they might already have been entitled to. It's also offering to
cut about a fifth of SCE&G's nuclear-related rates going forward.

"We understand our electric customers in South Carolina want
relief. We want to provide it to them, which is why we are
seeking a combination with Dominion Energy," SCANA spokesman Eric
Boomhower said. "We will continue to defend the company from
these lawsuits, in the best interest of our customers,
shareholders and employees."

SCANA said it still thinks the question of V.C. Summer payments
should be left to regulators on the Public Service Commission.

That's a position Hayes' order specifically rejected.

The commission "has no authority to ascertain the negligence of
corporate entities and their boards," Hayes wrote, and it doesn't
have the jurisdiction to handle constitutional questions. [GN]


SETERUS INC: Court Dismisses "Campbell" FCCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARK S. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v. SETERUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-2078-T-23TGW (M.D.
Fla.).

Seterus moves to dismiss the claims for failure to invoke the
district court's jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Mark Campbell petitioned for bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the
bankruptcy court discharged a debt owed by Campbell. Alleging
that Seterus attempted to collect the debt in 2017, Campbell sues
under the Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act (count one).

The FCCPA claim (count one)

Campbell attempts through the FCCPA claim to invoke jurisdiction
under Class Action Fairness Act, which requires an amount in
controversy greater than $5,000,000.  Section 559.77, Florida
Statutes, permits a prevailing plaintiff in an FCCPA action to
recover $1,000.  In a class action, Section 559.77 limits the
class award to $500,000. Also, Campbell requests punitive
damages, but Section 768.73 limits punitive damages to three
times the amount of compensatory damages. Because Florida law
prohibits a judgment greater than $2,004,000 in this instance,
Campbell fails to invoke jurisdiction under CAFA.

Supplemental jurisdiction over the FCCPA claim

No federal claim remains, and comity counsels against exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law FCCPA claim.
Although the FCCPA claim resulted from Seterus's alleged attempt
to collect a debt discharged in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court
closed Campbell's case more than five years ago. Florida's state
courts maintain a strong interest in adjudicating the FCCPA
claim, which involves no question inextricably intertwined with
bankruptcy law, and Campbell identifies no persuasive reason for
the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this
circumstance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84hxahv from Leagle.com.

Mark S. Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Gus M. Centrone --
gcentrone@centroneshrader.com -- Centrone & Shrader, PLLC,
Katherine Earle Yanes -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- Kynes, Markman &
Felman, PA & Brandon Kyle Breslow, Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA,
100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1450, Tampa, FL 33601

Seterus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allen Paige Pegg, --
allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jason David
Sternberg -- jason.sternberg@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP.


SIRIUS XM: Andrews Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James E. Andrews filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled James Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01724-PA-AFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 2, 2018, the
District Court granted summary judgment to Sirius XM in the
putative class action under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

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.

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 appellate case is captioned as James Andrews v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55169, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant James E. Andrews' opening brief is due on
      April 10, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does and Sirius XM Radio, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on May 10, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES E. ANDREWS, on behalf himself and all
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          1211 Puerta Del Sol
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd.
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

Defendant-Appellee SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., is represented by:

          Thomas Demitrack, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 586-3939
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: tdemitrack@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Ann Theresa Rossum, Esq.
          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          E-mail: atrossum@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com


SMCP USA: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMCP USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. SMCP USA, Inc. doing business as: Sandro, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01505 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Smcp USA Inc was founded in 2010. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of communications and related
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Judge Orders Class-Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-Michael Pugh, writing for News2, reports that a state circuit
judge March 1 issued an order denying an attempt by SCE&G to kill
five class-action complaints that seek to stop the utility from
continuing to charge its customers for costs associated with two
failed nuclear plants.

"Today's order is the first real step toward keeping the power
companies from continuing to benefit from their past misdeeds and
negligence stemming from the billions of dollars charged to
ratepayers to pay for the now-failed V.C. Summer nuclear plants,"
said plaintiff's attorney Ed Bell, Esq. -- ebell@edbelllaw.com --
of Bell Legal Group. He and colleagues filed one of five separate
actions related to the failed projects. The order applies to each
of the cases, which are listed below.

Today, Bell said he and other plaintiff's attorneys involved in
the cases would continue to push for their clients in the actions
against the utilities

"We will continue to press forward to hold the company
accountable," said Bell, a nationally-prominent attorney from
Georgetown. "It should be cut off from future payments for the
failed project and clean up its house on its own, not on the
backs of ratepayers for the next 20 years. It's just plain wrong
to charge ratepayers well into the future for the company's
failure."

The order issued by S.C. Circuit Court Judge John C. Hayes III
denied SCE&G's attempt to dismiss the plaintiff cases against the
company, which alleged the court didn't have jurisdiction , among
other arguments.

"Plaintiff's Complaint properly states causes of action in the
original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which the PSC [S.C.
Public Service Commission] is incapable of hearing," the court
wrote. "The relief sought by Plaintiff is not available through
the PSC, or any other administrative channel. And Plaintiff's
claims are separate and distinct from those matters currently
pending before the PSC."

In the order, Hayes wrote the issues brought by plaintiffs were
"well within the everyday purview of this court." He also wrote
the company received settlement funds after the project failed,
but didn't share them with customers, who have been paying for
the project since 2008.

"Despite Plaintiff funding a significant portion of the Project
over the past nine years, SCE&G has kept all proceeds of this
settlement and has not returned any of the settlement proceeds to
Plaintiff."

Bell added it was good that the cases were heard together because
it saved time for plaintiffs and the court.

"Having this order applied to the other cases will help make
something that's complicated easier to remedy," he said.

A call to stop an advertising campaign

Bell also called on the company and Dominion Energy to stop a
multi-faceted, misleading advertising and marketing campaign to
woo ratepayers to get support for a $7.9 billion buyout proposal
by Dominion for SCANA Corp., the parent of SCE&G.

He criticized SCE&G for spending big bucks to try to influence
the legislature to protect SCANA's investors following the
failure of the project.

"After learning how much money that SCE&G used to get the
sweetheart legislation passed to start on the nuclear project, it
is further appalling that SCE&G is taking the same tactic by
trying to influence the legislature to protect their investors
and to hell with the ratepayers," Bell said.

"What do these billion-dollar corporations want to give
ratepayers? A measly $1,000 per household. That's an insult to
ratepayers -- and it's an incredibly bad deal. That is pretty
shocking and I am not easily shocked." [GN]


STAAR SURGICAL: Class Action Suit Settled for $7-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Faulkner, writing for Mass Device, reports that Staar
Surgical inked a $7 million deal last year to settle claims that
the company misled investors regarding regulatory violations
spotted by the FDA at a Monrovia, Calif.-based manufacturing
facility.

The plaintiff, Edward Todd, initially alleged that Staar
Surgical, ex-president & CEO Barry Caldwell, CFO Deborah Andrews
and ex-CFO Stephen Brown failed to disclose problems that
eventually resulted in a warning letter from the FDA in 2014.

In the May warning letter, inspectors wrote that the company was
missing design files for its Visian implantable lenses and that
Staar Surgical had insufficient record-keeping, lack of risk
analysis documentation and poor customer complaint management.

Later that year, Todd filed a putative securities class action
suit against the company and its executives in the U.S. District
Court of Central California.

In October of 2014, Todd amended his complaint, reducing the
alleged class period to Nov. 1, 2013 -- Sept. 29, 2014 and
demanding compensatory damages as well as attorneys' fees.

Staar Surgical agreed to settle the case and in October last
year, the court issued a final approval for the $7 million class
action settlement deal, according to Staar Surgical's annual
report.

Staar Surgical reported losses of $138,000, or 0 cents per share,
on sales of $24.9 million for the three months ended Dec. 29. The
company reeled in its losses by 17.4% while sales grew 12.3%
compared with the same period last year.

Losses per share were ahead of estimates on The Street, where
analysts were looking for sales of $23.9 million.

Staar Surgical posted losses of $2.1 million for the full year,
or 5รต per share, on sales of $90.6 million, seeing losses shrink
by 82.4% on sales growth of 9.9% compared with the same period
last year. [GN]


SUMMIT CREDIT: Faces "Domann" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Credit
Union. The case is styled as Matthew Domann, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Summit
Credit Union and Does 1 - 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00167
(W.D. Wis., March 9, 2018).

Summit Credit Union, founded in 1935, is a credit union based in
Madison, Wisconsin, United States. As of 2015, it has 34
locations throughout the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
   O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C.
   111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400
   Milwaukee, WI 53202
   Tel: (414) 276-5000
   Fax: (414) 226-9905
   Email: Doug.Dehler@wilaw.com

      - and -

   Laura Jean Lavey, Esq.
   O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C.
   111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400
   Milwaukee, WI 53202
   Tel: (414) 276-5000x4712
   Fax: (414) 276-6581
   Email: Laura.Lavey@wilaw.com

      - and -

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

      - and -

   Taras Kick, Esq.
   The Kick Law Firm
   201 Wilshire Blvd
   Santa Monica, CA 90401
   Tel: (310) 395-2988
   Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com


SUPER MICRO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Super Micro Computer,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) who purchased shares between August 5, 2016
and January 30, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the Company was
improperly recognizing revenue on certain sales transactions; (2)
the Company failed to implement and maintain proper internal
controls over its financial reporting; (3) the Company's revenues
and income were artificially inflated as a result of its illicit
business practices; (4) these practices caused the Company to be
vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and adverse
regulatory action; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders have until April 9, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/super-micro-computer-
inc?wire=2.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


SYSTEMATIC NATIONAL: "Aparicio" Hits Autodialed Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imelda Aparicio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Systematic National
Collections, Inc., 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, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Sometime June 2017, Defendant contacted Aparicio on her cellular
telephone number in an effort to collect an alleged debt using an
automatic telephone dialing system where she incurred a charge
for incoming calls. Plaintiff did not give Systematic prior
express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, 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
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com


TASTE OF NATURE: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taste of Nature,
Inc. The case is styled as Sierra Gillespie, individually, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Taste of Nature, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02105-RGK-AFM
(C.D. Cal., March 13, 2018).

Taste of Nature, Inc. is a rapidly growing candy and snack food
manufacturing company whose fun and innovative products may be
found on store shelves nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher D Moon, Esq.
   Kamber Law LLP
   9404 Genesee Avenue Suite 340
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (310) 400-1051
   Fax: (858) 800-4277
   Email: cmoon@kamberlaw.com

      - and -

   Naomi B Spector, Esq.
   Kamber Law LLP
   9404 Genesee Avenue Suite 340
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (310) 400-1053
   Fax: (858) 800-4277
   Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com


TE CONNECTIVITY: Appeals Ruling in "Wilson" Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants TE Connectivity Networks, Inc., and Tyco Electronics
Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Dale Wilson v. TE Connectivity Networks, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
previously sought certification of three classes:

     (i) Meal Break Class: All persons employed by Defendants in
         hourly or non-exempt positions in California from
         October 1, 2010 through the date of class certification,
         who worked a shift of five hours or more.

    (ii) Rest Break Class: All persons employed by Defendants in
         hourly or non-exempt positions in California from
         October 1, 2010 through the date of class certification,
         who worked a shift of three and a half hours or more.

   (iii) Auto-Deduct Class: All persons employed by Defendants in
         hourly or non-exempt positions in California from
         October 1, 2010 through the date of class certification,
         who had a half hour deducted from their paychecks for a
         meal period.

The appellate case is captioned as Dale Wilson v. TE Connectivity
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80018, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DALE WILSON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners TE CONNECTIVITY NETWORKS, INC., a
Minnesota corporation, and TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania corporation, are represented by:

          Thomas M. Peterson, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1198
          E-mail: thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Kathryn T. McGuigan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-7390
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-7864
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: mriechert@morganlewis.com


TEXAS: Faces "Steward" Suit in District of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America. The case is styled as Eric Steward, ARC OF Texas, Inc.,
Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, Inc., et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, United
States of America v. Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, Charles
Smith, Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services
Commission, Jon Weizenbaum, Commissioner of the Texas Department
of Aging and Disability Services and State of Texas, Defendants,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Non-Party Petitioner,
Case No. 1:18-mc-00037-JDB (D.D.C., March 14, 2018).

Texas is the second largest state in the United States by both
area and population.[BN]

The Non-Party Petitioner is represented by:

   Daniel Patrick Schaefer, Esq.
   U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
   555 Fourth Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20530
   Tel: (202) 252-2531
   Fax: (202) 252-2599
   Email: Daniel.Schaefer@usdoj.gov


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Pavetic" Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Sinisa Pavetic, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00587-JRA (N.D. Ohio,
March 13, 2018).

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus Zelman
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Fax: (732) 298-6256


TRAVELPORT LP: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Williamson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Angela Henderson Williamson filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Angela Williamson v.
Travelport, LP, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00406-WSD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought on behalf of all persons, who reside in the United
States, who are vested participants in the Defendants' pension
benefit under the Legacy Pension Plan, are eligible to begin and
have begun receiving pension benefits, have had their pension
benefits inappropriately reduced with regard to Final Average
Compensation and Months of Benefit Service and had their pension
benefits inappropriately reduced due to the Defendants' failure
to keep appropriate pay records substantiating Final Average
Compensation.

Travelport, LP, provides online transaction processing and
information technology services to the travel industry worldwide.

Galileo & Worldspan U.S. Legacy Pension Plan is an ERISA-governed
employee pension plan sponsored by Travelport, LP, and
administered by Travelport in Atlanta, Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Angela Williamson v.
Travelport, LP, et al., Case No. 18-10449, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief was due on or before March 19, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before February 20, 2018, as to Appellant Angela Henderson
      Williamson; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before March 6, 2018, as to Appellee Travelport, LP.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANGELA HENDERSON WILLIAMSON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oladimeji Ade-Olu Ogunsola, Esq.
          PATEL BURKHALTER LAW GROUP
          4045 Orchard Road, Building 400
          Atlanta, GA 30080
          Telephone: (678) 974-1541
          Facsimile: (678) 547-3119
          E-mail: dogunsola@patelburkhalter.com

               - and -

          Douglas N. Campbell, Esq.
          DOUGLAS N. CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4776 E Conway Drive NW
          Atlanta, GA 30327-3537
          Telephone: (404) 256-0423
          Facsimile: (404) 550-2856
          E-mail: dougcampbell@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Nancy B. Pridgen, Esq.
          MONNOLLY PRIDGEN LLC
          3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 1800
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 551-5884

Defendants-Appellees TRAVELPORT, LP, and GALILEO & WORLDSPAN U.S.
LEGACY PENSION are represented by:

          Patrick Fred Clark, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 881-1300
          E-mail: patrick.clark@ogletree.com

               - and -

          John Houston Pope, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, PC
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177-1211
          Telephone: (212) 351-4500
          E-mail: jhpope@ebglaw.com


TROLLBEADS UNITED: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trollbeads United
States, Inc. The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Trollbeads United States, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02190 (S.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018).

Trollbeads was founded in 1976 in a small jeweler's store in
Copenhagen, Denmark, and is the original beads-on-bracelet brand
known for using the highest quality materials and
craftsmanship.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TRUSTCO BANK: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustco Bank. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trustco Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02278-AJN (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018).

Trustco Bank is a commercial bank within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (917) 796-7437
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. ("Ubiquiti") (NASDAQ:UBNT)
between May 9, 2013 and February 20, 2018. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/ubiquiti-networks-inc?wire=3

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: (i) that the size of the Company's purported
user community was drastically overstated; (ii) that the Company
had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and
(iii) that as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti's publicly
disseminated financial statements were materially false and
misleading. On February 20, 2018, Ubiquiti revealed that it had
received a subpoena from the SEC "requesting documents and
information relating to a range of topics including metrics
relating to the Ubiquiti Community, accounting practices,
financial information, auditors, international trade practices,
and relationships with distributors and various other third
parties."

If you suffered a loss in Ubiquiti you have until April 23, 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 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]


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: UBNT) from May 9, 2013 through
February 20, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ubiquiti investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Ubiquiti class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1210.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) that the size of Ubiquiti's purported user
community was drastically overstated; (2) that Ubiquiti had
exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and (3)
that as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti's publicly
disseminated financial statements were materially false and
misleading. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 23, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1210.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-
767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors.

         Contacts
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com[GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Dulberg" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Martin Dulberg, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
01611-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2018).

Uber Technologies Inc. is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food
delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jennifer R. Liakos, Esq.
   Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
   525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
   El Segundo, CA 90245
   Tel: (310) 331-8224
   Fax: (646) 843-7603
   Email: jliakos@napolilaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Mejia"
------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the case captioned
JOSE MEJIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-61617-
BLOOM/Valle(S.D. Fla.).

Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay All Court
Proceedings and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support.

Uber has maintained a policy that prohibits drivers and riders
from carrying guns. Mejia, who is licensed in the State of
Florida to carry a concealed weapon or firearm, alleges that he
began work as an Uber driver, offering transportation services
primarily in the Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.
Plaintiff wishes to carry a firearm in his vehicle while he
provides transportation services through Uber. Based on these
allegations, Mejia claims that Uber has violated his rights and
the rights of a putative class of Uber drivers who offer
transportation services in Florida and possess a license to carry
a concealed weapon or firearm.

Although the parties have not raised the issue of standing, the
Court properly considers this threshold jurisdictional question
prior to adjudication of the Motion before the Court.

A plaintiff must satisfy three constitutional prerequisites of
standing:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical.

Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of the injury has to be fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of
the independent action of some third party not before the court.

Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

The crux of Plaintiff's claim is that the Policy conflicts with
Florida Statute 790.251(4)(c)-(d), even though the plain language
of the Policy carves out the conflict Plaintiff complains of and
Uber has not otherwise attempted to enforce the Policy against
Mejia. Instead Plaintiff requests the Court to extrapolate how,
if at all, Uber might enforce the Policy against Plaintiff and
the putative class. Plaintiff speculates that Uber may prohibit
him from keeping his firearm in his vehicle while using the Uber
application, allegedly in contravention of Florida law, but this
hypothesis does not support a finding of the 'actual or imminent'
injury that our cases require" and defies the plain language of
the policy.

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first prong of the
Lujan test. Rather, the relief that Plaintiff seeks, that the
Court declare that Defendant's conduct violates the statute
referenced herein, is an impermissible exercise in purely
advisory decision-making. Because Plaintiff lacks standing, the
Court refrains from further consideration of the Motion and this
action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybqe3ec7 from Leagle.com.

JOSE MEJIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beverly Virues,
Beck, Lee, Elizabeth Lee Beck, Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers & Jared
H. Beck, Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite
205. Miami, Florida 33186

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Edward Maurice Mullins -- emullins@reedsmith.com -
- Reed Smith LLP, Brandon T. White -- bwhite@reedsmith.com --
Reed Smith, LLP & Hannah Lisbeth Sorcic -- hsorsic@reedsmith.com
-- Reed Smith LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ontario Judge Stays $400MM Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Robinson, writing for the Canadian Lawyer, reports that an
Ontario judge has stayed a proposed class action lawsuit brought
against Uber by its own drivers in favour of arbitration in the
Netherlands.

In Heller v. Uber Technologies, the plaintiff, David Heller, was
seeking $400 million in damages for the class as well as a
declaration that Uber violated the Employment Standards Act by
failing to pay benefits to the putative class members. Heller
entered into a service agreement, which included an arbitration
clause, when he began working as an Uber driver in 2016.

The clause held that any disputes or conflicts would be resolved
by arbitration in the Netherlands, where Uber's legal team is
primarily located.

When Uber moved to have the proceeding stayed in favour of
arbitration, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell found the
matter should not proceed as a class action in Ontario as the
drivers are bound by the arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs are now appealing Perell's decision.

Lior Samfiru, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff, says
the decision, if ultimately upheld, could have "disastrous"
implications for employees and could "change the face of
employment law."

He says the decision could mean that employees might not have a
way to enforce their rights under the ESA when employers include
such arbitration clauses in agreements.

"If all employers have to say is you have to go arbitrate in a
foreign country, then all those rights become meaningless," says
Samfiru, who is a partner and co-founding member of Samfiru
Tumarkin LLP.

Citing a 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Seidel v. TELUS
Communications Inc., Perell said in his decision that absent
legislative language to the contrary, courts must enforce
arbitration clauses and only refuse to refer such a matter to
arbitration "if it is clear that the matter falls outside" of the
agreement.

Heller argued that the issue is outside of the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator in the Netherlands as the proposed class action is
about an alleged employment relationship. Uber countered this by
saying it is for the arbitrator to decide whether they have
jurisdiction -- except for in limited circumstances -- according
to what is called the competence-competence principle.

Under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, the
competence-competence principle holds that courts should defer
jurisdiction to an arbitrator when there is an arguable case the
arbitrator does indeed have jurisdiction and if it is not clear
whether a dispute falls outside of the terms of an arbitration
agreement.

Heller maintained that his action falls within the exceptions of
when the court has to refer a matter to an arbitrator and that it
would be contrary to public policy to enforce such an arbitration
agreement in an employment contract as it would deny non-
unionized employees their rights under the Employment Standards
Act.

Perell found that for this argument to be successful, Heller is
assumed to be Uber's employee. The judge also found that the
wording of the ESA does not preclude staying the action in favour
of arbitration.

"Further, the issue of whether employment claims are arbitrable
is an issue subject to the competence-competence principle,"
Perell wrote in the decision. "It is a complex issue of mixed
fact and law to be determined in the first instance by the
arbitrator; it is not a simple matter of statutory interpretation
to be resolved by the court."

Heller also argued that the arbitration agreement was null and
void as it was unconscionable. He contended that it was illegal,
as it contracted outside of the ESA.

Perell found that the exceptions to a stay and referral to
arbitration, however, did not apply to the action as he did not
see a "situation of unconscionability in the circumstances of the
immediate case" and that it was not clear that the dispute fell
outside the arbitration agreement. Samfiru says that drivers
should not be bound by the clause as it is an unfair provision
that effectively deprives drivers from the ability to pursue
their legal rights.

"Let's face it. No driver is ever going to file for arbitration
in the Netherlands," he says.

He adds that the arbitration clause represents a breach of the
ESA, which gives individuals the right to pursue entitlements at
the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ministry of Labour or in
court.

Lauren Tomasich, Esq. -- ltomasich@osler.com -- a partner with
Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, who was not involved with the case,
says the decision is the latest in what has become a "tsunami" of
case law since 2000 in favour of arbitration agreements.

"It really follows along the trend that we've been seeing that
arbitration clauses are to be enforced absent legislative
intention to the contrary," she says.

Tomasich says there are some pieces of legislation in Ontario,
such as the Consumer Protection Act, that hold disputes must be
resolved in the courts and that arbitration clauses cannot
preclude recourse to the courts. In this case, however, she says
there is no such provision in the Employment Standards Act or
Class Proceedings Act.

She adds that the decision shows the power of an arbitration
clause.

Lisa Talbot, Esq. one of the lawyers who represented Uber in the
matter, declined to comment. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Ulta" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ULTA) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, and docketed under 18-cv-01577, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ulta
securities between March 30, 2016, and February 23, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover 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, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ulta securities between
March 30, 2016, and February 23, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until May 1, 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 the number of shares purchased.

Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates a chain of beauty stores. The Company
offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and
salon services, and serves customers throughout the United
States.

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) the Company was
engaged in the widespread practice of repackaging returned
cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to
sell at full retail price; and (ii) that as a result of the
foregoing, Ulta's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On February 9, 2018, at market close, media outlets reported that
a consumer class action lawsuit had been filed against Ulta,
alleging that the Company engaged in the "widespread and
surreptitious" practice of repacking returned cosmetics and re-
shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full
price.  According to the lawsuit, "dozens of other current and
former Ulta employees from retail locations all over the country
confirmed that substantially similar practices also occurred at
the Ulta stores where they worked."

On this news, Ulta's share price fell $9.07, or 4.15%, to close
at $209.48 on February 12, 2018, the following trading day.

Then, on February 23, 2018, CBS News published a story on its
website entitled "Former Ulta Beauty employee says she felt
pressured to resell used products," reporting on statements,
initially made on Twitter by at least one former Ulta employee,
to the effect that Ulta store managers frequently pressured the
Company's employees to clean and resell used products.

On this CBS News report, Ulta's share price fell $8.18 or 3.94%,
to close at $198.93 on February 26, 2018.

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

         CONTACT:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Tel: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


UNITED STATES: Veterans with PTSD Sue Over Biased Discharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Wentling, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that by
the age of 21, Marine Corps Cpl. Tyson Manker led infantrymen
into battle in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. His actions as a Marine
garnered him the Presidential Unit Citation and other awards, yet
the military doesn't consider his service as honorable.

Manker endured intense combat, saw civilians killed and witnessed
the death of a close friend -- experiences that caused nightmares
and other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder that only
worsened when he returned home.

Later that year while on leave, Manker was caught with marijuana,
which he used to self-medicate. He was kicked out of the Marine
Corps for misconduct with an other-than-honorable discharge.

"It's a national disgrace for the federal government to say
someone doesn't have honor because they didn't handle the
stresses of war the way some bureaucrat back stateside thinks
they should've," said Manker, now 36 and an attorney in Illinois.

Having tried and failed to get an upgrade, Manker is now the lead
plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed March 2 against the
Navy in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The suit claims
the Navy has an institutional bias against veterans with PTSD.
The National Veterans Council for Legal Redress is also a
plaintiff in the lawsuit. It's a Connecticut-based group
comprised of veterans with other-than-honorable discharges.

It's estimated that tens of thousands of servicemembers suffering
from PTSD or other mental health conditions caused by their
wartime experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have been kicked out
of the military with other-than-honorable discharges, known as
"bad paper." The status precludes them from receiving medical
care and other benefits through the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Worse still, Manker said, is the stigma associated with
the discharge status.

"We're in a system of punishing those who serve on the
frontlines," said the veteran, who has been haunted by his other-
than-honorable status for years.

The Navy Discharge Review Board, responsible for discharges of
sailors and Marines, has granted upgrades in only 15 percent of
cases since 2016 in which PTSD was a contributing factor,
according to the suit. In comparison, the Army granted upgrades
in 45 percent of the same kind of cases and the Air Force granted
37 percent.

"My hope with this is that the discharge review board will start
following the law, plain and simple," Manker said. "It's about
principle. It's about restoring honor."

After Manker was kicked out of the Marines, a civilian doctor
diagnosed him with PTSD. He was later denied mental health care
by the VA, and he continued to self-medicate. He said he
struggled with suicidal thoughts.

Manker turned things around in 2011, when he began seeing another
civilian doctor who also diagnosed him with PTSD. His health
improved, he went to college and then law school.

In 2016, the Navy Discharge Review Board denied his upgrade
request despite his multiple PTSD diagnoses.

The lawsuit filed March 2 requests Manker's discharge be upgraded
to honorable and the Navy follow Defense Department policy that
requires review boards to give "liberal consideration" to
veterans who seek to upgrade their discharges because of mental
health conditions.

A policy change was made in August in an attempt to afford more
leniency to veterans, but the suit claims the Navy board
continues to unlawfully deny upgrades.

The lawsuit was filed by the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at
Yale Law School, overseen by Michael Wishnie, which has filed
other lawsuits in recent years seeking to change the military's
treatment of veterans with other-than-honorable discharges.

The suit has the potential to include tens of thousands of
veterans. The Government Accountability Office released findings
in 2017 that the Defense Department separated approximately
92,000 servicemembers for misconduct from 2011 through 2015, and
57,000 of them were diagnosed with PTSD, traumatic brain injury
or other conditions that can change servicemembers' moods and
behaviors and lead to disciplinary problems.

Like Manker, many of them are disqualified them from receiving
any VA health care or other benefits because of their discharge
status.

"He's not afraid to sue the DOD," Thomas Burke, a Marine Corps
veteran with bad paper, said of Wishnie. "That's really what it
takes."

Burke isn't part of this lawsuit. He has an attorney and is
working on an upgrade request, but he hasn't filed one yet.
Looking at the numbers, he's not too confident he'll be approved.

In Afghanistan in 2010, Burke came close to committing suicide.
At the time, he was already diagnosed with PTSD. Six months after
his near-suicide, he was kicked out of the Marines.

Now he advocates for other veterans with bad paper. He'll
graduate from Yale in May with his Masters of Divinity, intent on
becoming a minister. What he really wants, he said, is to be a
military chaplain. But his bad paper makes that impossible.

"I know I'd be in a place to love and care for these soldiers and
Marines better than anyone else could, and I'll never get that
opportunity," Burke said. "Just the rhetoric, the language of
'other-than-honorable' -- it hurts. It's isolating. It's a chip
on my shoulder."

There are a lot of veterans out there who feel the same, Manker
said, and many of them don't know what they can do. Even as an
attorney, Manker described the requirements to prove an upgrade
as daunting.

With the lawsuit, he's hoping that process is made easier.

"How do we expect them to do what I, as an attorney, failed to do
with the discharge review board?" Manker said. "If I can't prove
my case, who can?" [GN]


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Faces "Gor" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Fidelity
LP. The case is styled as Vadim Gor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Universal Fidelity LP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01474 (E.D. N.Y., March 9, 2018).

Universal Fidelity LP, also known as UFLP, provides billing,
collection, and call center services for companies, and federal,
state, and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


US BANK: Court Dismisses "Skibbe" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned DWAYNE SKIBBE and DEBORAH SKIBBE, Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
BANK TRUST, N.A., As Trustee for LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST;
and LAW OFFICES OF IRA T. NEVEL, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 192
(N.D. Ill.).

This case involves an improperly-filed foreclosure in Illinois
state court and the homeowners' claim that this improper
foreclosure constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act (FDCPA), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICPA).

The Mortgage Loan

Dwayne and Deborah Skibbe (Skibbes) refinanced their home
mortgage loan with Household Finance Corporation (HFC) in the
amount of $271,132.11 and secured the loan with their home.

Foreclosure I

The Skibbes defaulted on their monthly mortgage payments again in
2010. HFC filed a foreclosure suit against the Skibbes in Kane
County seeking a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Skibbes'
home (Foreclosure I). The Skibbes filed for bankruptcy on
December 23, 2011. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the Skibbes
filed a statement of intention to surrender the property.
Plaintiffs' Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed on May 21, 2012, and
HFC afterwards voluntarily dismissed Foreclosure I.

Foreclosure II

A little over a year later, in June 2013, Nevel, on behalf of
HFC, filed a second foreclosure against the Skibbes in Kane
County seeking foreclosure and sale of Skibbes' home (Foreclosure
II). Unfortunately for the Defendants, HFC voluntarily dismissed
Foreclosure II five months later. It seems a mystery even to the
parties why Foreclosure II was voluntarily dismissed.

Foreclosure III

The parties continued to argue about whether Foreclosure III was
proper, both in letter correspondence prior to Foreclosure III's
filing and then throughout the state court litigation, including
on appeal.

Prior State Court Litigation

The Skibbes won that argument in state court. The circuit court
dismissed Foreclosure III with prejudice, holding it was barred
by the single-refiling rule.  The Defendants appealed, but they
fared no better.

Federal Court Litigation

The Skibbes filed this lawsuit in federal court alleging that the
Defendants' improper filing of Foreclosure III violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA), and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICPA). A brief
procedural history: U.S. Bank's Motion to Dismiss was denied.
Both Defendants answered the Complaint and asserted affirmative
defenses; the Court struck Nevel's four affirmative defenses, but
U.S. Bank's thirteen remain.  U.S. Bank's counterclaims were
dismissed primarily based on res judicata. The Court denied the
Skibbes' Motion to Amend their Complaint after the Supreme
Court's ruling in Henson v. Santander, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1721
(2017).

Violation of the FDCPA

FDCPA Claim Against U.S. Bank (Count I)

U.S. Bank argues that it is not a debt collector under the FDCPA,
pointing to the Supreme Court's recently decided Henson v.
Santander, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1721 (2017).

Henson resolved a Circuit split as to whether an entity that
purchases a debt from another and then seeks to collect payment
for itself is a debt collector under the FDCPA. Answering the
question in the negative, Henson held that a debt purchaser may
indeed collect debts for its own account without triggering the
statutory definition of 'debt collector.'

There are two prongs to the definition of debt collector under
the FDCPA. An entity is a debt collector if (1) the principal
purpose of its business is the collection of any debts, or (2)
its business regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another.  Henson addressed the second prong, and, as discussed,
removed U.S. Bank from the definition of debt collector under
that prong. The Skibbes contend that U.S. Bank is still a debt
collector under the primary-purpose prong, which was unaffected
by Henson. However, the Skibbes never alleged that the primary
purpose of U.S. Bank's business was debt collection (the first
prong) and their Motion to Amend the Complaint for that purpose
was denied. Therefore, the Skibbes cannot move forward under the
primary-purpose definition.

Accordingly, U.S. Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment on the FDCPA
claim is granted.

FDCPA Claim Against Nevel (Count II)

The only FDCPA claim remaining is against Nevel. Nevel admits
that it is a debt collector under the FDCPA.

However, Nevel argues that summary judgment in its favor is also
appropriate because a violation of the Illinois Rules of Civil
Procedure does not, on its own, give rise to a violation of the
FDCPA and that is all the Skibbes have been able to prove here.

In Hemmingsen, Hemmingson, 674 F.3d 814, 819-20 (8th Cir. 2012).
the Eighth Circuit rejected an FDCPA claim based on alleged
misrepresentations within a summary judgment motion in state
court. In dismissing the FDCPA claim, the Court reasoned:
"The rule [plaintiff] urges that a debt collector's fact
allegations are false and misleading for purposes of Section
1692e when not adequately supported in the collection suit would
be contrary to the FDCPA's apparent objective of preserving
creditors' judicial remedies, an objective consistent with the
principle that the right of access to the courts is an aspect of
the First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress
of grievances.  If judicial proceedings are to accurately resolve
factual disputes, a lawyer must be permitted to call witnesses
without fear of being sued if the witness is disbelieved and it
is alleged that the lawyer knew or should have known that the
witness' testimony was false.  There is no need for follow-on
Section1692e litigation that increases the cost of resolving bona
fide debtor-creditor disputes."

Certainly an FDCPA claim could arise from state court litigation,
but merely violating a procedural rule (as here) is insufficient.
Based on all the undisputed facts before this Court on summary
judgment, the Court finds that the filing and prosecuting of the
procedurally-barred Foreclosure III does not give rise to an
FDCPA violation. Because state-court procedural and evidentiary
missteps are not false, deceptive, or misleading representations
or means that are actionable under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e of the
FDCPA, this Court grants summary judgment to Nevel.

Violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act Against U.S. Bank (Count III)

The Skibbes also argue that U.S. Bank violated the ICFA by filing
Foreclosure III when it was unlawful. U.S. Bank vehemently argues
that merely losing a foreclosure action does not constitute a
violation of ICFA.

Although the Skibbes attempt to distinguish the cases cited by
U.S. Bank, they do not point to any case law with analogous facts
that support a claim under the ICFA. Certainly, debt collectors
may violate the ICFA if they fabricate the debt or lie about
their right to collect on a debt. Here, there is no dispute that
the mortgage was valid and owed by the Skibbes and that the
factual statements in the pleadings were accurate. The Skibbes
cite Maldonado, but Maldonado held that bringing a debt
collection action in a more distant venue, although improper, was
not the kind of deceptive conduct that the ICFA contemplates.
Here, the state court found Foreclosure III was improper, but
that alone is insufficient to avoid the litigation privilege.

Accordingly, U.S. Bank and Nevel's Motions for Summary Judgment
are granted. The Skibbes' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 15, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd7m8gc9 from Leagle.com.

Dwayne Skibbe & Deborah Skibbe, Plaintiffs, represented by Ross
Michael Zambon, Zambon Law, Ltd. Po Box 3389, Auburn, AL 36831.
(of counsel Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.).

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation
Trust, Defendant, represented by Kathleen A. Stetsko --
Kstetsko@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.

Law Offices of Ira T. Nevel, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Elsnic, Law Offices of Ira T. Nevel, Ira T. Nevel,
Attorney at Law, 175 North Franklin Street, Suite 201, Chicago,
IL 60606-1847, James V. Noonan -- jnoonan@noonanandlieberman.com
-- Noonan & Lieberman, Robert Edward Haney --
rhaney@noonanandlieberman.com -- Noonan & Lieberman, Ltd. &
Solomon Maman -- smaman@noonanandlieberman.com -- Noonan &
Lieberman, Ltd.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation
Trust, Counter Claimant, represented by Kathleen A. Stetsko,
Perkins Coie LLP.

Deborah Skibbe & Dwayne Skibbe, Counter Defendants, represented
by Nick Heath Wooten, Nick Wooten, LLC, & Ross Michael Zambon,
Zambon Law, Ltd., 900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150, Oak Brook, IL,
60523 (of counsel Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.).


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine &
Kebartas, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Beyer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01549
(E.D. N.Y., March 13, 2018).

Valentine & Kebartas, Inc. provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


WARREN COUNTY, OH: Adoptive Families File Suit in S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warren County,
Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners. The case is styled as
Adoptive Family #1 and Their Daughter A. and Adoptive Family #2
and Their Children B. and C., individually and on behalf of class
of similarly situated children and parents, Plaintiffs v. Warren
County, Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00179-SJD (S.D. Ohio., March 14, 2018).

Warren County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. As
of the 2010 census, the population was 212,693. Its county seat
is Lebanon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Esq.
   Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA
   441 Vine Street, Suite 3400
   Cincinnati, OH 45202
   Tel: (513) 621-9100
   Fax: (513) 345-5543
   Email: agerhardstein@gbfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until April 16, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC), if they purchased the
Company's securities between January 13, 2017, and July 27, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

                           Get Help

Wells Fargo investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-wells-fargo-amp-company-
securities-litigation-1 or call to speak to our claim center
toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                     About the Lawsuit

Wells Fargo and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On July 27, 2017, The New York Times reported that, based on an
internal Wells Fargo report, "[m]ore than 800,000 people who took
out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto insurance
they did not need," and that "[t]he expense of the unneeded
insurance. . . . pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers
into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle
repossessions," and it estimated "that the bank owed $73 million
to wronged customers."

On this news, the price of Wells Fargo's shares plummeted.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions
of dollars from securities class action settlements.
ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action
landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to
ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial
instruments. [GN]


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,234 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 32,234 pending asbestos-related claims as of
December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018.

Crane Co. states, "As of December 31, 2017, the Company was a
defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Of the 32,234 pending claims as of December 31, 2017,
approximately 18,200 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 600 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
1,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense
verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the
court.  The Company further has pursued appeals of certain
adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of
the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Set for April 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that a
new trial is set for April 2018 regarding the lawsuit over James
Nelson's asbestos claim.

The Company states, "On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for
a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson
claim.  On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the
verdict in the amount of US$4.0 million, jointly, against the
Company and two other defendants, with additional interest in the
amount of US$0.01 million being assessed against the Company,
only.  All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs
took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.  On
September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in
a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all
defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial.  Plaintiffs
requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated
November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion,
and granted en banc reargument.  On December 23, 2014, the
Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury
verdict.  Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, which defendants have opposed.  By order dated
June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied
plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.  The case is set for a
new trial in April 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is set for March 6, 2018 in the asbestos suit filed
by Richard DeLisle against Crane Co., according to the Company's
Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16 percent of an US$8 million verdict.
The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and
entered judgment against the Company in the amount of US$1.3
million.  The Company has appealed.  Oral argument on the appeal
took place on February 16, 2016.  On September 14, 2016 a panel
of the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in
favor of the Company.  Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals
a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9,
2016.  Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme
Court of Florida.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11,
2017.  The briefing in this matter has concluded, and oral
argument is set for March 6, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poage" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that it
is seeking further review of a ruling in an asbestos suit filed
by James Poage.

The Company states, "On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state
court jury in the James Poage claim entered a US$1.5 million
verdict for compensatory damages against the Company.  The jury
also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount
of US$10 million.  The Company filed a motion seeking to reduce
the verdict to account for the verdict set-offs.  That motion was
denied, and judgment was entered against the Company in the
amount of US$10.8 million.  The Company initiated an appeal.
Oral argument was held on December 13, 2016.  In an opinion dated
May 2, 2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the
judgment in all respects.  The Court of Appeals denied the
Company's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of
Missouri.  The Company sought leave to appeal before the Supreme
Court of Missouri, which denied that request.  The Company is
seeking further review of that ruling by the Supreme Court of the
United States."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Rabovsky" Lawsuit in 4Q2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that the
settlement related to the asbestos claim of Valent Rabovsky was
reflected in the fourth quarter 2017 indemnity amount.

The Company states, "On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, federal court jury found the Company responsible
for a 30 percent share of a US$1.085 million verdict in the
Valent Rabovsky claim.  The court ordered briefing on the amount
of the judgment.  The Company argued, among other things, that
settlement offsets reduce the award to plaintiff under
Pennsylvania law.  A further hearing was held April 26, 2016,
after which the court denied the Company's request and entered
judgment in the amount of US$0.4 million.  The Company filed
post-trial motions, which were denied in two decisions issued on
August 26, 2016 and September 28, 2016.  The Company is pursuing
an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which was argued
on June 12, 2017.  On September 27, 2017, the Court entered an
order asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to decide one of
the issues raised in the Company's appeal.  The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania accepted the request, and the Company settled the
matter.  The settlement was reflected in the fourth quarter 2017
indemnity amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co Ongoing at Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument related to the asbestos claim of George Coulbourn
against Crane Co. is set for March 15, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona
federal court jury found the Company responsible for a 20 percent
share of a US$9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim,
and further awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the
amount of US$5 million.  The jury also awarded compensatory and
exemplary damages against the other defendant present at trial.
The court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of
US$6.8 million.  The Company filed post-trial motions, which were
denied on September 20, 2016.  The Company is pursuing an appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefing is complete, and
oral argument is set for March 15, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/HAJlIU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 54,000 Open Claims at Dec31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that there were 54,000
open claims filed against the Company at December 31, 2017.

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 Stoker Corporation, 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 annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2017 quarter, 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$409
million at December 31, 2017 compared to US$419 million at
September 30, 2017.

"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 December 31, 2017, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$151 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$155 million at September 30,
2017.  During the June 2017 quarter, 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."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Tv2ukt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that wholly-owned
subsidiary Hercules LLC had 12,000 open claims filed against it
related to asbestos matters at December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "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 the June 2017 quarter,
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$315 million at December 31,
2017 compared to US$323 million at September 30, 2017.

"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 of December 31, 2017 and September 30, 2017, the receivables
from insurers amounted to US$68 million.  During the June 2017
quarter, 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-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Tv2ukt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. still defends itself against personal
injury lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in
certain product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 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 the 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.  Our insurance carrier 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 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, and we
continue to pursue our claims against the remaining defendants.
We believe these settlement agreements 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
for satisfying 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 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-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1hyNje


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Lawsuits v. Global Power Unit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Global Power Equipment Group Inc. subsidiary continues to face
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos
personal injury lawsuits.  Neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed
asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury
underlying these actions.  The bankruptcy court's discharge order
issued upon the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in January
2008 extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed
asbestos claims against it before that time.  The Company
believes the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a
bar against any later claim filed against it, including any of
its subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any
time before emergence from bankruptcy.  In any event, in all of
the asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, the Company has
been successful in having such cases dismissed without liability.

"Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage
that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential
indemnity obligations of its former operating unit relating to
these claims.  The Company intends to vigorously defend all
currently active actions, all without liability, and it does not
anticipate that any of these actions will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be
predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this
will be the case."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/U4Wjxp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jail Officials Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin grants Defendants Dane County Jail
Officials' motion for summary judgment since the evidence of
record establishes neither that Plaintiff Roy Mitchell was
exposed to dangerous levels or mold or asbestos, nor that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to those conditions.

Between 1998 and September of 2016, Mitchell has been
incarcerated at the Dane County Jail on various occasions.
Plaintiff Roy Mitchell claims that various Dane County Jail
Officials subjected her to conditions of confinement that
violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In
particular, she is proceeding on claims that she was housed in a
section of the Dane County Jail that exposed her various hazards,
including sewage flies, asbestos, lead, and black mold.

The Defendants include Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Dane
County Jail Captain Anhalt, Sergeant Olsen, Sergeant Skerpenski,
Deputy Merrill, and Dane County Administrator Joe Parisi.
Mitchell claims that each of these defendants knew about the
conditions in the jail and failed to correct them. As to Parisi
specifically, Mitchell claims that he failed to pass a budget
that would provide funding to improve conditions at the Dane
County Jail.

Mitchell has been seen by health care providers since being
diagnosed with atypical pneumonia in September of 2016. Since
that time, Mitchell has since been seen by her health care
providers multiple times for complaints of problems breathing,
nasal congestion and problems walking for long periods of time,
but she has not been diagnosed with pneumonia since 2016.
Although a regular smoker of cigarettes in the past, Mitchell's
records further indicate that she reported to her health care
providers that she believes these symptoms to be related to her
exposure to asbestos at the Dane County Jail.

At the time of her deposition, August 29, 2017, Mitchell stated
that she was suffering from bronchitis, but the court has been
unable to locate a medical record confirming that diagnosis.
Mitchell has a February 2018 appointment scheduled a UW Health
pulmonologist for suspected asbestos exposure, but the court has
been unable to identify any instance in her medical records in
which a health care provider confirmed actual exposure to
asbestos.

Mitchell claims that during her time on the 7th floor of the
City-County Building of the Dane County Jail, she (along with
other inmates and staff) had been exposed to four types of
hazards: asbestos, lead paint, black mold and "sewage flies" that
appear around the drainage holes in the Jail. Assuming for the
moment that Mitchell was exposed to a dangerous level of asbestos
at some point in her life, the question remains whether plaintiff
has submitted proof of the presence of, and exposure to, asbestos
during the relevant time period that she was an inmate of the
Jail's 7th floor.

Beyond personally averring that she has been exposed to all of
these conditions, Mitchell submitted sixty pages of "sworn
declarations" of other inmates. These sworn statements similarly
refer to allegedly unsanitary conditions in the jail, including
the presence of black mold and bugs, although none put Mitchell
near any such hazards; as opposed to being housed in the jail
generally. Nor do they provide additional, specific information
about the conditions to which Mitchell was exposed.

As such, even setting aside the question of the admissibility of
these statements, they do not provide much corroborating evidence
material to proving the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to Mitchell's exposure to constitutionally infirm
conditions of confinement. Accordingly, the Court has not
considered those statements material for purposes of evaluating
Mitchell's constitutional claims in this lawsuit.

Mitchell has also submitted a June 2014 "Needs Assessment and
Master Plan" report for the Dane County Jail and Sheriff's Office
created by the engineering firm of Mead & Hunt, and directed to,
among others, Administrator Parisi, Sheriff Mahoney and Jail
Captain Anhalt.

Mitchell argues that this report establishes that the inmates
were held in "dire psychological and unsafe dehumanizing
environmental conditional hardships." At summary judgment,
Mitchell submitted what appear to be portions of that final
report, which do not include such an unqualified condemnation,
but does contain an executive summary stating that "the age of
the City County [Building], outdated technology, and poor
physical conditions of the buildings cause many risks and
hazards." The report further states that among those risks are
the "existence of hazardous materials (asbestos and lead paint)"
in the portions of the Jail located in the City County Building.
Finally, the report states that "stakeholders" should use caution
in "considering long term solutions" for the City County Building
due to the immense costs associated with remodeling and updating
the City-County Building to meet those concerns.

While some of the statements from the report would appear to
corroborate some of Mitchell's own claimed experiences at the
Dane County Jail, like the affidavits of other inmates, the Court
finds that they are not specific enough, alone, to support a
finding of deliberate indifference.

Scott Teuscher, Dane County's Safety Coordinator, is a Certified
Asbestos Inspector and holds a current license to do inspections
in the State of Wisconsin. In this role, Tuescher is responsible
for inspecting and sampling materials for the presence of
asbestos-laden materials before any Dane County renovation and
demolition projects can begin, one of the requirements in the
County's written policies on asbestos control.

It is undisputed that on August 29 and 30 of 2017, Teuscher
toured and inspected each cell and holding area within the Dane
County Jail where Mitchell has been housed in since 1998,
including cells in the City-County and Public Safety Buildings.
Teuscher's visual inspection did not lead him to believe that any
of these cells had asbestos-containing materials. Even though
other areas in the buildings needed testing, Teuscher did not
deem testing necessary in Mitchell's cells because they were in
good condition and not subject to renovation or demolition.

Still, Mitchell maintains that she was exposed to asbestos,
citing only her own, self-serving observations about exposure,
past and current issues with her lungs, and the 2014 report
recognizing the existence of asbestos in portions of the Jail, a
place she stayed off and on between 1998 and 2016. At the same
time, Mitchell admits that she is not an expert on asbestos, she
does not know what asbestos is or looks like; she is unable to
say specifically where in the Dane County Jail asbestos was
located; and she cannot identify any laws or regulations that the
Dane County Jail violated with respect to asbestos.

Mitchell also submitted no evidence that she had been exposed to
a dangerous level of asbestos as the Dane County Jail. Further,
Mitchell has never been diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis,
or any other asbestos-related illness. While she has an upcoming
appointment related to her complaints of asbestos exposure, she
has not been told to date by any medical professional that her
health was endangered or compromised due to asbestos exposure.

As to her claims about asbestos, plaintiff's evidence -- her own
statements and the 2014 report -- permits the trier of fact to
conclude no more than that the portions of the City-County
Building in which Mitchell was housed at times between 1998 and
2014 contained asbestos. However, the mere presence of asbestos
does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because, while
unfortunate, "the fact remains that asbestos abounds in many
public buildings," and "exposure to moderate levels of asbestos
is a common fact of contemporary life."

Mitchell concedes that she cannot identify asbestos. More
importantly, she has submitted no evidence supporting a finding
that the asbestos within the City-County Building was exposed to
the air, nor that she otherwise was exposed to friable asbestos
when housed there. While Mitchell's medical records show that she
reported asbestos exposure to her treating professionals after
she learned about the 2014 report, she submitted no evidence that
actually confirms (or even suggests) exposure. In fact, there is
no evidence of measurements about the air quality, nor instances
where she was actually present for major construction or
renovation projects that could have opened up the possibility of
exposing her to asbestos-laden materials, which was the concern
raised by the 2014 report.

Furthermore, Mitchell does not dispute defendants' evidence that
none of the cells in which plaintiff was housed posed a risk of
exposure to asbestos. Even assuming that plaintiff does in fact
suffer from asbestos-related illness, therefore, she has failed
to submit evidence of a "causal connection" between her potential
injury and exposure at the Dane County Jail. Accordingly, the
record before this court on summary judgment does not support a
finding that the presence of asbestos in the portion of the City-
County Building in which Mitchell was housed for sporadic periods
of time between 1998 and 2016 created conditions of confinement
that violated her constitutional rights.

With respect to the asbestos and lead paint only, it may be
reasonable to infer from the 2014 report that Parisi, Mahoney and
Anhalt were on notice that the City-County Building generally
contained both of these potential hazards. However, this piece of
evidence advances Mitchell's theory only minimally, since
knowledge of their presence alone does not establish knowledge
that the conditions were sufficiently serious to constitute cruel
and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, just as there is no evidence that Mitchell was
actually exposed to dangerous levels of either asbestos or lead
paint, there likewise is no evidence that any of the defendants
actually knew about exposure to any of the four hazards and
failed to respond to them in an appropriate manner. To the
contrary, Mitchell has acknowledged that the Dane County Jail had
policies and procedures in place to address the presence of
asbestos, flies and mold, and nothing in the record suggests that
defendants have failed to address or remediate dangerous exposure
to lead paint.

Specifically, Mitchell does not dispute that the Dane County Jail
employs exterminators on a seasonal and regular basis to
eliminate the flies. Similarly, as to the mold, the jail not only
has inmate workers clean the floors on a weekly visit and has
staff also clean the floors, Dane County Jail policies permit the
jail to contract with third parties for more thorough cleaning
projects, and Mitchell admits, based on her own observations, the
cleaning efforts have been successful. Based on this record, a
reasonable fact finder simply could not conclude that any of the
named defendants' acted with deliberate indifference to the
alleged conditions.

Even assuming that Mitchell submitted evidence supporting a
finding she was not only exposed to conditions of confinement
that exceeded the contemporary bounds of decency and that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to those conditions, she
has submitted no evidence that she was injured because of that
exposure. A plaintiff must show both injury and a causal
connection between that injury and the deprivation of a
constitutionally protected right.

Mitchell's medical records indicate that she is scheduled to meet
with a pulmonologist regarding multiple respiratory symptoms
(coughing, wheezing, trouble walking long distances), which she
attributes to her alleged asbestos exposure, the Court finds no
reason to wait for the results of plaintiff's upcoming
examination.

While Mitchell admitted during her deposition that she also
previously smoked cigarettes, if, indeed, she does receive a
diagnosis of a condition typically caused by asbestos (or black
or toxic mold exposure) such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung
cancer or black mold poisoning, the Court holds that a reasonable
fact finder may conclude that the injury was caused by one of the
challenged conditions.

The case is Roy Mitchell, Plaintiff, v. Dane County Sheriff
Department, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-352-wmc, (W.D.
Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated February 13, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y87ssyjs from Leagle.com.

Roy Mitchell, Plaintiff, pro se.

Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Mrs. Anhalt, Joe Parisi, Sergeant Olsen,
Sergeant Skerpenski & Deputy Merrill, Defendants, represented by
Matteo Reginato --  mreginato@ammr.net -- Arenz, Molter, Macy,
Riffle & Larson, S.C., Remzy Bitar -- rbitar@ammr.net -- Arenz,
Molter, Macy, Riffle & Larson, S.C. & Samantha R. Schmid, Arenz,
Molter, Macy, Riffle & Larson, S.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Entitled to Setoff in "Oakes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Mississippi reverses the Court of Appeals'
judgment affirming the Warren County Circuit Court's denial of
Illinois Central Railroad's request for a setoff of a jury
verdict awarded to Bennie Oakes through his representative Clara
Hagan.

The Court holds that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the
primary case it relied upon and ignored other federal precedent.
The Court maintains that the issue presented in the appealed
case, Illinois Central Railroad Company, v. Bennie Oakes,
Deceased, by and through Clara Hagan, his Representative, No.
2015-CT-00644-SCT. (S.Ct. Miss.), is whether the Defendant is
entitled to a setoff for money already paid to the Plaintiff for
the same injuries alleged to have been caused by the Defendant.

As described by Illinois Central, who as appellant framed the
issues for appeal, "This case is about whether, once those
damages are assessed by a jury, a railroad company under the
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] is entitled to a credit or
reduction of that verdict for sums that have already been paid by
others to the Plaintiff for the same injuries and damages." In
Illinois Central's answer, it raised an affirmative defense that
"it is entitled to apportionment or set off liability and/or
damages for any negligence of or damages caused by third parties,
including but not limited to other employers and manufacturers,
distributors, and sellers of products to which plaintiff claims
the decedent was exposed as alleged in the complaint." However,
Illinois Central later clarified its position that it was not
attempting to have negligence apportioned, and the circuit court
echoed the clarification by stating that Illinois Central had not
"tried to use a third, an empty chair for any other defendants."

On February 13, 2009, Clara Hagan filed a complaint, as the
representative of Bennie Oakes, against Illinois Central in the
Warren County Circuit Court. The complaint, brought under the
provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act, sought to
recover damages for "personal injuries and/or death sustained by
Bennie Oakes, deceased, while [Oakes] was employed by [Illinois
Central] and while engaging in interstate commerce."

Oakes had been an employee of Illinois Central from 1952 through
1994 and was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis. The complaint
contained allegations that: "As a result of his exposure to
asbestos containing products and materials, [Oakes] has developed
asbestosis, lung cancer, shortness of breath, reduced lung
function, cough, chest congestion, and is at increased risk to
develop one or more of the following diseases: mesothelioma,
asbestos related pleural disease, mixed dust pneumoconiosis,
sleep interruption, aggravation of pre-existing and co-existing
disease, throat cancer, laryngeal cancer, colon, stomach, and
other asbestos related cancer." According to the complaint, due
to Illinois Central's negligence in exposing Oakes to asbestos
daily, Oakes incurred injury and damages.

The first trial occurred in 2011 but resulted in a hung jury. The
jury in the second trial found in favor of Hagan and awarded
$250,000 in damages. However, the jury also apportioned fault,
with Illinois Central being twenty percent at fault and Oakes
being eighty percent at fault. Therefore, the circuit court
adjusted the damages accordingly, and the total award was
$50,000. Illinois Central filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment
and Setoff to have the damages reduced further based on its
discovery that Hagan had received more than $65,000 in payments
from asbestos trusts for Oakes' injuries and death. The circuit
court denied Illinois Central's motion and entered the judgment
of $50,000 plus eight percent interest.

Illinois Central appealed, and the case was assigned to the Court
of Appeals. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Greenlee
framed the issue on appeal as "whether setoff against a jury
verdict is required in [Federal Employers' Liability Act] cases
where the claimant has already settled with separate
tortfeasors." Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Oakes, 2016 WL 7647571,
(Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2016). The Court of Appeals held:
"Because an injured railroad employee can recover all his damages
from his railroad employer if the employer's negligence caused
any part of the employee's injury, and because the collateral
source rule does not allow for a defendant to avoid payment of
damages based on compensation to the plaintiff from a third party
that was not a party to the action, we find that an allowance of
setoff for recoveries from nonparty tortfeasors is inconsistent
with the [Federal Employers' Liability Act]'s intent, the
statutory language, and Mississippi and U.S. Supreme Court
precedent."

Nothing in the [Federal Employers' Liability Act] entitles the
plaintiff to more than one recovery for his damages. This case
involves an injury caused by exposure to asbestos; the Plaintiff
has already been compensated for this same injury by the
manufacturers of the asbestos; and there is no reason that her
recovery against Illinois Central should not be reduced to
account for those payments.

In its petition, Illinois Central argued that the Court of
Appeals decision is in "irreconcilable conflict with previous
opinions... and disregards the controlling federal law on the
issue." Additionally, Illinois Central submitted that the primary
case of Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135
(2003), relied upon by the Court of Appeals' decision, was
misconstrued and misapplied to the present case.

Illinois Central also argued that the Court of Appeals' decision
erred in holding that the collateral source rule applied to
asbestos trusts set up by the now-bankrupt asbestos manufacturers
as a condition of their bankruptcy proceedings. Finally, Illinois
Central contended that the Court of Appeals' decision effectively
"obliterates" the one-recovery rule by allowing Hagan to collect
from the asbestos trust for the asbestos-related injury and also
from Illinois Central for the same asbestos-related injury.

As the Court of Appeals noted, the issue in the present case is
whether Illinois Central is entitled to a setoff of the jury
verdict based on Oakes' or Hagan's receipt of settlement funds
from an asbestos bankruptcy trust. The Supreme Court holds that
it is, and the Court of Appeals and the circuit court erred in
concluding otherwise.

The Court of Appeals' majority opinion based its holding
primarily on the United States Supreme Court case of Ayers. The
majority states that the Supreme Court in Ayers rejected "the
suggestion that the [Federal Employers' Liability Act] would
permit damages to be apportioned among joint tortfeasors
according to the degree of fault attributable to each." (citing
Ayers, 538 U.S. at 161-65). Further, "the Ayers Court found
significant that Congress, while expressly directing in the
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] the apportionment of
responsibility between employers and employee based on
comparative fault, did not provide for such apportionment among
potentially liable tortfeasors."

According to Ayers: "After reduction for three claimants'
comparative negligence from smoking and for settlements with non-
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] entities, the final judgments
amounted to approximately $4.9 million." The issue in Ayers was
whether fault could be apportioned among joint tortfeasors, and
Ayers stands for the premise that a plaintiff may recover its
full amount of damages from one defendant and places the burden
on the defendant to seek contribution from other nonparty
tortfeasors later.

In the present case, the Supreme Court points out that had
Illinois Central asked that the jury apportion fault to Illinois
Central, Oakes, and the nonparty asbestos trusts, standing in the
place of the now-bankrupt asbestos manufacturers, such request
would have run afoul of Ayers. However, that is not what
happened, and the jury apportioned fault between Illinois Central
and Oakes, as permitted by the Federal Employers' Liability Act
and Ayers.

Simply, Ayers does not apply to the facts and issue of the
present case. The trial court has never apportioned fault to the
asbestos trusts and, had it done so, it would have erred pursuant
to Ayers. The settling asbestos trusts never have been held to be
liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. Even though Ayers does not
apply to the issue presented in the case sub judice because the
issue there was whether, under the Federal Employers' Liability
Act, fault could be attributed to nonrailroad joint tortfeasors
and the issue is whether, after a verdict in which fault is not
attributed to any other tortfeasors the defendant is entitled to
a setoff equal to money already paid to the plaintiff for the
same injuries, the principal purpose of the Federal Employers'
Liability Act announced therein reinforces our holding.

As argued by Oakes, "[The Federal Employers' Liability Act]'s
express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of
the Act, allow a worker to recover his entire damages from a
railroad whose negligence jointly caused an injury . . ., thus
placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from
other tortfeasors." After adjustment for fault apportioned to
Oakes, the jury's verdict awarded him $50,000 in damages. The
asbestos trusts have paid him more than $50,000. Accordingly, he
has recovered his entire damages from the asbestos trusts, and
with the setoff, the Federal Employers' Liability Act's purpose
has been fulfilled. Nowhere in Ayers or any other authorities
cited by Oakes is there any indication that the Federal
Employers' Liability Act contemplates that a plaintiff would
receive more than his entire damages, as would be the case absent
the setoff.

To further [the Federal Employers' Liability Act's] humanitarian
purposes, Congress did away with several common-law tort defenses
that had effectively barred recovery by injured workers. As
cataloged in Gottshall, the [Federal Employers' Liability Act]
abolished the fellow servant rule; rejected the doctrine of
contributory negligence in favor of... comparative negligence;
prohibited employers from exempting themselves from the [Federal
Employers' Liability Act] through contract; and, in a 1939
amendment, abolished the assumption of risk defense. Consolidated
Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. [532, 542], 114 S.Ct.
2396.

While the Ayers Court's holding that fault may not be apportioned
between the railroad and nonrailroad defendants rests upon the
Federal Employers' Liability Act's negating of the common law
defense of apportionment. However, nothing in the statute changes
the common law on damages to the effect that a defendant, such as
Illinois Central in the case sub judice, would be prohibited from
seeking a setoff from another entity, which earlier paid the
plaintiff for the same injuries.

A full-text copy of the Order on Writ of Certiorari dated
February 15, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd725mpd
from Leagle.com.

Glenn F. Beckham -- gbeckham@upshawwilliams.com -- Harris
Frederick Powers, III -- hpowers@upshawwilliams.com -- Attorneys
for Appellant.

Henry Dean Andrews, Jr. , Timothy W. Porter --
tim@portermalouf.com -- Patrick Malouf --
patrick@portermalouf.com -- John Timothy Givens --
johnny@portermalouf.com -- Attorneys for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nexus Corp. Not Liable in "Amling" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois has issued an Opinion dismissing and
referring the case styled Harrow Industries LLC, Plaintiff, v.
Nexus Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, No. 3:17-
cv-3222, (C.D. Ill.) to Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins to
set a limited discovery schedule so that Plaintiff can determine
how National Greenhouse Company passed from Old Nexus to
Defendant, as well as set a deadline for Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.

Plaintiff's claims are based on a 1990 Asset Purchase Agreement
involving the sale of National Greenhouse Company, a company that
designs and builds greenhouses and sells products for the use in
greenhouses. Plaintiff alleges that Harrow Products, Inc.
(Harrow) sold National Greenhouse Company to Defendant pursuant
to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 1990. Harrow is
now a division of Plaintiff's corporate structure. The Agreement
identifies the seller as National Greenhouse Company and the
purchaser as Nexus Corporation (which is the same name as
Defendant). Harrow is identified as the owner of 100% of the
stock of the seller.

The Agreement contains a provision providing that the purchaser
assumes certain liabilities of the seller and also providing
that, "except as provided herein, Purchaser shall be liable for
all claims arising after the Closing date from events occurring
after the Closing date." The Purchaser also agreed to indemnify
the seller for certain claims, losses, and liabilities.

In 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant were named as Defendants in
Robert M. Amling and Deborah Amling v. Burnham, LLC et al.,
Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 2016-L-000111. In that
underlying lawsuit, the Amlings allege that Robert Amling was
exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from products designed,
manufactured, sold, delivered, distributed, processed, applied,
specified, or installed by the various named defendants in that
action, including Plaintiff and Defendant as successors-in-
interest to National Greenhouse Company. The Amlings further
allege that this exposure caused Robert's mesothelioma, which was
diagnosed on October 7, 2015.

In October 2017, Plaintiff Harrow Industries LLC filed a two-
count Complaint against Defendant Nexus Corporation based on a
1990 Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of National Greenhouse
Company. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable for damages
arising out of the Amling case. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that, based on the Agreement, Defendant is liable for any damages
related to National Greenhouse Company in the Amling case because
the Amlings' claims arose after the closing date of the Agreement
from an event that occurred after the closing date of the
Agreement.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant owes Plaintiff a
contractual duty to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against any
claims arising after the closing date of the Agreement. Defendant
has purportedly breached its contractual obligations by failing
to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against the Amlings' claims.
Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that Defendant is
liable for all amounts expended by Plaintiff regarding National
Greenhouse Company in the Amling case.

In December 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and asked
the Court to take judicial notice of certain documents, including
filings with the Colorado Secretary of State. Defendant argues
that it was not a party to the 1990 Agreement on which the
Complaint is based, as Defendant was not even incorporated until
1994. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff fails to plausibly
allege any basis for holding Defendant liable for claims based
entirely on the 1990 Agreement.

The Colorado Secretary of State documents show that, on January
12, 1994, Nexus Corporation (Old Nexus) changed its name to Leroy
Greenhouse Corporation (Leroy). On February 8, 1994, Defendant
was formed when it filed Articles of Incorporation. On September
30, 2004, the State of Colorado administratively dissolved Leroy.
The State of Colorado documents, of which the Court takes
judicial notice, demonstrate that Defendant was not a party to
the Agreement because Defendant was not incorporated until
several years after the Agreement was executed.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true and
construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.
However, the complaint must set forth facts that plausibly
demonstrate a claim for relief. A plausible claim is one that
alleges factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Merely
reciting the elements of a cause of action or supporting claims
with conclusory statements is insufficient to state a cause of
action.

In response, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is a proper party
because Defendant owns and operates National Greenhouse Company,
and it is a reasonable inference that the entity currently
operating National Greenhouse Company is a successor to any
liability of the entity that bought National Greenhouse Company
from Harrow in 1990. Alternatively, Plaintiff asserts that it
should be allowed discovery to determine how National Greenhouse
Company passed from Old Nexus to Defendant.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant was a party to the
Agreement, alleging: that Defendant has owned and operated
National Greenhouse Company since its acquisition via the
Agreement; that Defendant agreed it would be liable for claims
arising after the closing date of the Agreement; that Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable contract); and
that Defendant owes Plaintiff a contractual duty under the
Agreement.

Plaintiff may be able to allege successor liability, but the
Complaint currently contains no allegations from which the Court
can reasonably infer that Defendant is liable under the Agreement
on a successor-liability theory.

Plaintiff argues that the allegation that Defendant owns and
operates National Greenhouse Company is sufficient to plausibly
allege successor liability. However, even if the Court infers
that Defendant purchased National Greenhouse Company at some
point, the general rule is that a corporation that purchases the
assets of another corporation is not liable for the latter
corporation's debts or liabilities.

While exceptions to this general rule exist, Plaintiff has not
alleged any facts from which the Court could infer that any of
those exceptions apply. A corporation that purchases the assets
of another is liable for that corporation's debts and liabilities
where: (a) the purchasing corporation explicitly or implicitly
assumes the debts and liabilities; (b) the transaction amounts to
a consolidation or merger; (c) the purchaser is merely a
continuation of the seller; or (d) the transaction is for the
fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller's
obligations.

Because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Defendant is
liable for claims based on the Agreement, the Court granted
Defendant's Motion and granted Plaintiff leave to conduct limited
discovery and file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 21, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ubxg7h from Leagle.com.

Harrow Industries LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Michael W. Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com --
Swanson Martin & Bell LLP & Adam H. Doeringer --
adoeringer@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin & Bell LLP.

Nexus Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Richard M. Scherer, Jr. -- rscherer@lippes.com -- Lippes
Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Plenco Dismissed in "Lineberger"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted the parties' Joint Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Defendant Plastics Engineering Company (d/b/a Plenco) and its
wholly owned subsidiaries from the case Tommy William Lineberger
and spouse Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00390-MR-
DLH, (W.D. N.C.), without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 22, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9vvdlex from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, and spouse & Marcella Wilson
Lineberger, Plaintiffs, represented by Sabrina G. Stone --
sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice &
William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham.

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor-by-merger
to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and
also as successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Techman -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com --
Evert Weathersby Houff.

CNA Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Celanese Corporation,
formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephen B. Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall,
Starnes & Davis, P.A.

Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. --
kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Asbestos Claims in "Davis" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1984, John Davis, an Alabama resident, accepted a job working
for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. After undergoing a pre-
employment physical examination in Eufaula, Alabama, Davis worked
exclusively at Louisiana-Pacific's Clayton, Alabama facility. In
March 1998, he voluntarily resigned and permanently moved to
Georgia. More than 17 years after he voluntarily resigned and
moved to Georgia, Davis was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May
2015. He exclusively received treatment for his mesothelioma
condition in Georgia.

Davis filed a claim for benefits with the Georgia State Board of
Workers' Compensation in August 2015. After Davis died as a
result of his condition the following month, his surviving
spouse, individually and on behalf of a minor child
("Appellant"), filed a claim for death and dependent benefits.
Neither Davis nor Appellant asserted a claim for benefits under
Alabama's workers' compensation system. The administrative law
judge and the State Board found that the Board did not have
jurisdiction, which was affirmed by the superior court.

Appellant argues that dismissal was improper because, under
Article 8 of the Act, specifically OCGA Section 34-9-281, the
Board has jurisdiction over all work-related injuries and deaths
that occur in Georgia. Although Davis was last exposed to
asbestos in Alabama, Appellant contends that his work-related
injury did not occur until he was diagnosed and became disabled,
both of which took place in Georgia, as did his work-related
death. In a related claim of error, Appellant contends that
general rules of statutory construction support his
interpretation.

"Where applicable, the Workers' Compensation Act provides the
exclusive remedy to an employee injured by accident arising out
of and in the course of the employment." The general provisions
of the Act apply to Article 8, Compensation for Occupational
Disease, "unless otherwise provided in or inconsistent with
[that] article."

OCGA Section 34-9-281 (a), on which Appellant relies, begins:
"Where the employer and employee are subject to this chapter, the
disablement or death of an employee resulting from an
occupational disease shall be treated as the occurrence of an
injury by accident; and the employee or, in the case of his or
her death, the employee's dependents shall be entitled to
compensation as provided by this chapter. The practice and
procedure prescribed in this chapter shall apply to all the
proceedings under this article except as otherwise
provided . . ."  Thus, OCGA Section 34-9-281 (a), by its own
terms, applies only where both the employer and employee are
subject to the Act.

In contrast, OCGA Section 34-9-242, located in Article 6, Payment
of Compensation, provides: "In the event an accident occurs while
the employee is employed elsewhere than in this state, which
accident would entitle him or his dependents to compensation if
it had occurred in this state, the employee or his dependents
shall be entitled to compensation if the contract of employment
was made in this state and if the employer's place of business or
the residence of the employee is in this state unless the
contract of employment was expressly for service exclusively
outside of this state . . . " Thus, OCGA Section 34-9-242
includes a jurisdictional provision, unlike Article 8.

Appellant does not dispute that the contract of employment was
entered into in Alabama for service exclusively in that state.
Under the plain and ordinary meaning of OCGA Section 34-9-242, if
the "accident" occurred while Davis was employed in Alabama, he
does not meet the conditions of coverage under the Act.

Although Davis did not have a work-related "injury" under the Act
until his 2015 diagnosis and disablement in Georgia, the
"accident" that resulted in Davis' injury was his exposure to
asbestos while he was employed in Alabama. Thus, because the
contract of employment was also made in Alabama, OCGA Section 34-
9-242 excludes compensation for Davis' "injury" (his disablement
and death) under the Act. It follows that the Board did not err
by dismissing the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the of Court of Appeals of Georgia for the Second
Division affirmed the administrative law judge and the State
Board's finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the
appealed case Davis et al., v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., A17A1726,
(Ga.App. 2d).

A full-text copy of the Judge Reese's Decision dated February 27,
2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6vkblty from
Leagle.com.

Robert Cape Buck , for Appellant.

Juliana Y. Sleeper , for Appellant.

Trisha Elise Holland , for Appellee.

Marion George Waters IV , for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Could Affect Asbestos Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Abrahm Hurt of The Statehouse File reported that legislation
working its way through the Indiana General Assembly that would
limit asbestos lawsuits is a version of a model law crafted by
the American Legislative Exchange Council and pushed by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.

Testimony by proponents of House Bill 1061 told the Senate Civil
Law Committee said that the issue is about transparency and
fairness to those affected by asbestos.

But lawyer Kathy Farinas, who represents asbestos victims across
the state, said the bill is not needed because Indiana already
has a court that has effectively ruled on these cases for years.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative
organization that writes state-level legislation for lawmakers
across the country, first developed the bill in 2007. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of business
interests, has been traveling from state to state to urge
lawmakers to pass the proposed legislation.

Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, who authored Indiana's version of the
bill, said the first part would look at Indiana's statute of
repose, which deals with when a claim can be filed by a plaintiff
in a liability case.

"Our law has been struck down by the courts," he said during
testimony. "The concern I have there is I do think it is the
responsibility of this legislative body to make public policy.
Not the judicial branch but the legislative branch."

The proposed law, which recommends a 10-year statute of repose,
would refer the timing of when a lawsuit can be filed to a summer
study committee.

Two other parts of the bill, if enacted, could have an immediate
impact on the Indiana cases pending in Marion Superior Court.
One would require plaintiffs, within 30 days, to file a form with
the court detailing any settlements they might have received from
the national trust funds set up when asbestos makers went
bankrupt decades ago. Current lawsuits have been directed against
other businesses whose employees might have become sickened by
asbestos exposure.

The other part of the bill would bar a plaintiff from filing a
lawsuit over asbestos exposure until they actually become sick.
Proponents said it would make sure that sick people get their
cases heard first.

Mark Behrens, who represents the U.S. Chamber Institute of Legal
Reform, said plaintiffs' attorneys delay filing trust claim forms
because they don't want the jury to hear about other asbestos
exposure they may have had.

"The average person with mesothelioma will file 20 different
trust claims and recover about a half a million dollars," Behrens
said during his testimony. "That is relevant information that the
jury should decide if a local small business is the defendant in
a case, but by delaying the filing of those claim forms they can
hide that information from the jury."

Behrens is also a lawyer for Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington
D.C. and co-chairs their public policy practice group.

Farinas said the legislation is not necessary because she is
already required to give the defendants the trust claims that she
files for her clients. She also disputed his claim that lawyers
delay filing trust claims to hide information from the businesses
being sued.

"We just firmly believe there's a big difference in what's
discoverable versus admissible and making these trust claim
documents prima fascia evidence of wrongdoing that goes to a jury
can only confuse them," she said.

Farinas said she is most concerned about efforts to change
Indiana's statute of repose to 10 years, which hurt her clients'
ability to sue to recover damages for asbestos exposure.

"Science shows that asbestos diseases will never show up within
the first 10 years from exposure," she said during her testimony.
Farinas said the bill also contains language that says a
physician is not allowed to diagnose an asbestos-related injury
unless 15 years have passed from exposure to diagnosis.

Farinas said the statute of repose portion of the bill is unique
to Indiana and not included in other states that have passed
similar legislation.

"This bill is a national model that is being, I like to say, a
square bill trying to be put in round Indiana hole," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Objects to Committee Counsel Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison County Record reported
that  Bestwall LLC, a unit of Georgia Pacific, objects to a
motion filed by asbestos claimants requesting the court
reconsider approval of its counsel in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.

"In fact, the (claimants') arguments either are without legal
merit or are premised on misstatements or misunderstandings of
the facts," the debtor's Feb. 15 objection states.

Bestwall LLC, formerly part of Georgia Pacific LLC, filed a
voluntary petition for bankruptcy on Nov. 2 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

On Jan. 26, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants filed an
omnibus motion to reconsider employing King & Spalding LLP of
Atlanta and Schachter Harris LLP of Irving, Texas as the debtors'
special counsel.

Local attorneys Beth A. Gori of Gori Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville and Andrew O'Brien of O'Brien Law Firm PC in St.
Louis are included on the committee of lawyers for claimants.

The committee alleges Bestwall was formed on July 31, 2017, as
part of a "very carefully planned and executed" restructuring
process by Georgia Pacific.

Georgia Pacific moved to Texas for less than a day to utilize the
state's divisive merger statute and spun off its asbestos
liabilities into Bestwall, a new company with limited assets,
claimants say.

"Specifically, the Debtor, an entity with no employees, certain
limited holdings valued by the Debtor at approximately $175
million, and a contractual right to certain payments under a
'Funding Agreement,' assumed liability for all of Old GP's
asbestos liabilities and domiciled itself in North Carolina less
than 100 days before the Petition Date in anticipation of a
bankruptcy filing," the motion states.

Then on Nov. 1, 2017, the day before its bankruptcy filing, the
debtor changed its name from Georgia Pacific to Bestwall.

"The sole issue in this case is the treatment of the Georgia-
Pacific Asbestos Liabilities. Indeed, from inception, the
Debtor's entire corporate purpose was to provide Old GP and New
GP with a resolution of the Georgia-Pacific Asbestos Liability
without Old GP or New GP being subjected to a bankruptcy filing.

Bestwall seeks to retain King & Spalding to assist with the
estimation trial, which has represented Old Georgia Pacific for
more than 13 years.

However, the committee argues that King & Spalding will be a
significant witness at any estimation trial based on its
"extensive knowledge concerning Old GP's businesses, former
asbestos-containing products, history related to asbestos
litigation, scientific research relating to issues arising in the
asbestos cases filed against Old GP, defenses to asbestos claims,
and both Old GP's and the Debtor's management of the defense and
settlement of asbestos claims."

The committee also argues that the firm's "role in connection
with pre-petition management of the debtors' asbestos liability
defense provides it with an interest that may be adverse to the
best interests of the debtor's estate."

The committee states that by arguing that Georgia Pacific's
settlement history has been tainted by withheld information, the
debtor has put at issue the approach Georgia Pacific used in
making decisions to settle asbestos related personal injury and
wrongful death claims.

"Central to Old GP's and the Debtor's decisions to address
asbestos claims through litigation, settlement, or otherwise will
be the conduct and advice of its counsel.

"Among other things, K&S' role in establishing settlement
protocols and values, including what was known or should or could
have been known in establishing such protocols and recommending
such settlement values, will be at issue in any estimation
trial," the motion states.

Further, the committee argues that any communications that would
have otherwise been subject to attorney-client privilege will
also be placed at issue.

"To state it plainly, K&S' settlement advice, its defense
strategy, and its management of trial counsel are likely to be at
issue in any estimation trial," the motion states.

"While the Committee has no information to suggest that K&S'
representation of Old GP and Bestwall in connection with the
Georgia-Pacific Asbestos Claims was less than superb, if the
investigation of other potential sources of recovery by Old GP
was deficient, it is possible that K&S' interests and the
interests of the Debtors' estate could conflict," it continues.

As for Schachter Harris, the motion states that Bestwall seeks to
retain the firm to assist with medical science expertise,
historical experience representing the debtor and technical
knowledge regarding expert testimony and discovery in asbestos
claims.

The committee argues that Schachter Harris' proposed services
regarding medical science expertise "are unnecessary and
irrelevant with regard to an estimation proceeding before this
Court."

"An estimation proceeding is not a process in which the Debtor
can globally re-litigate whether Georgia-Pacific's chrysotile-
containing products cause mesothelioma," the motion states. "Such
a determination is beyond the Court's jurisdiction."

The committee adds that Schachter Harris lawyers will also be
important fact witnesses regarding its services as National
Coordinating Counsel for Georgia Pacific in asbestos cases for
three years before the debtor entered bankruptcy proceedings.

The motion states that any estimation proceeding should
approximate as reliably as possible the amount Georgia Pacific
would have paid to dispose of asbestos claims absent Bestwall's
bankruptcy.

"Under applicable jurisprudence, this Court may not decide which
set of medical/science experts are correct on the issue of the
extent to which Georgia-Pacific's products caused or contributed
to the mesothelioma claims against Old GP/the Debtor," the motion
states.

The committee argues that Georgia Pacific's contention that
chrysotile asbestos does not contribute or cause mesothelioma and
its supporting medical science evidence are reflected in its
verdicts and settlements.

"The Debtor has neither contended that the plaintiffs presented
evidence relating to chrysotile which was hidden to them and as
to which they were unable to respond, nor asserted that there are
new developments in the independent medical or scientific
literature," the motion states. "Thus, the Court must take the
state of tort law as it exists and should not permit the Debtor
to attempt to use this Court to serve as a legislator or as an
alternative fact-finder to the state courts, which regularly
serve as finder of fact on this very issue."

Referencing the Garlock Sealing Technologies estimation
proceeding, the committee argues that the parties presented
extensive evidence on the medical science related to chrysotile
asbestos. However, the evidence was "ultimately proved
irrelevant" to the court's estimation holdings, the motion
states.
Garlock sought bankruptcy protection to escape increasing
settlement awards and jury verdicts, which it blamed on plaintiff
attorneys who were allegedly withholding evidence of other
company culpability.

U.S. District Judge George Hodges agreed, finding that the amount
of previous awards and settlements paid by Garlock in the civil
justice system were not reliable because plaintiffs' attorneys
had withheld evidence of their clients' exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured by other companies in order to
maximize recovery against Garlock.

Bestwall attorney Garland Cassada of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson
of Charlotte, N.C. filed an objection to the motion to
reconsider, arguing that "denying the debtor access to
representation of its choice, including by curtailing the role of
such counsel, requires compelling justification. Here, the ACC
has offered no valid factual or legal justification for that
relief, much less a compelling one."

It further argues that the committee's motion is an attack on its
legal team.

"Far from seeking to remedy any actual and identified risks
associated with the Professionals' retention by the Debtor, the
Motion instead is a transparent attempt to hamstring the Debtor's
ability to pursue an estimation proceeding in the event that one
is needed."

Casada wrote that Bestwall is "committed to pursuing a prompt and
consensual resolution" in determining the debtor's liability.
However, he notes that an estimation trial is typical.

He adds that Bestwall has no reason to believe attorneys with the
two firms will be called as witnesses, as their testimonies are
not necessary.
Casada argues that attorneys with King & Spalding and Schachter
Harris did not serve in the roles the committee alleges.
Therefore, attorneys with the firms are not qualified to testify
to the matters raised in the committee's motion.

As for the committee's argument over medical and science
evidence, the debtor argues that such evidence has been an
important part to estimation proceedings in similar bankruptcy
cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Names Copes Vulcan, et al., in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a
woman alleges her father's cancer was caused by his exposure to
asbestos during his career.

Jacqueline Norful, individually and as special administrator of
the estate of Wymon Norful, filed a complaint on Feb. 6 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Copes Vulcan Inc., Foster
Wheeler Corp., Honeywell International Inc., et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during plaintiff's decedent Wymon Norful's work as a
security guard from 1966 to 1997, 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. 1, 2017, the decedent first
became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease, and that it was wrongfully caused. He died on Nov. 16,
2017, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Copes Vulcan Inc., Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Honeywell International Inc., et al. 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 and seeks compensatory, exemplary and punitive
damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori
of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-84


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Alert After Low Level Exposure Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Dray, Esq. -- carl.dray@cms-cmno.com -- of CMS Cameron
McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, writing for Lexology.com, wrote that
the insurance industry is on alert following the High Court
ruling in Hawkes v Warmex Ltd [2018] EWHC 205 (QB). Mr Peter
Marquand ruled that asbestos exposure that was less than
'substantial' was capable of establishing breach under the common
law duty of care and s. 47 of the Factories Act in the 1940s.

Mrs Hawkes died from mesothelioma in 2014. It was alleged that
between 1946 and 1952 she had been exposed to asbestos while
making electric blankets at the defendant's factory. It was
claimed the inner linings of the blankets were made of asbestos
which would come loose and settle on her clothes as she worked.
The claimant, Mrs Hawke's son, argued that the defendant was
negligent and in breach of numerous statutory duties. Judge
Marquand held that the claimant had failed to demonstrate the
lining contained asbestos. Accordingly, the claim failed on the
facts.

Crucially, however, obiter the Judge addressed the defendant's
duties as a factory owner and employer in the 1940s and 1950s in
terms of low-level exposure:

Dealing with the 'second limb' of s.47 and whether the
defendant's manufacturing process produced 'substantial'
quantities of dust, the judge held that it did not. Having heard
the expert evidence and reviewed the relevant literature he
considered it improbable that such fibre counts would have been
visible;

Most importantly, dealing with the 'first limb' of s.47, the
judge accepted the formula laid down in Jeromson v Shell Tankers
[2001] EWCA Civ 101, whilst strictly confining Williams v The
University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 to its context. He
held that in determining breach of duty, the question is whether
asbestos-related injury is foreseeable, rather than mesothelioma
itself. He found that by 1946 to 1952, asbestos-related injury
was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of exposure to asbestos
dust even at low levels, and if the lining had been proved to
contain asbestos, the defendant would have been in breach of its
common law duty and s.47 of the Factories Act 1937.

This case appears to be a further step towards departure from
Williams, albeit Mr Marquand's remarks were made obiter and are
therefore non-binding. With the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd pending, the industry is relying on
the Appeal Judges to reaffirm the decision in Williamsand provide
much needed clarity on the issue of low-level asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant Atty Hails Landmark Asbestos Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hyde of Law Gazette reported that the Court of Appeal has
reset the threshold for asbestos-related cases, which could pave
the way for thousands of potential claims.

Lord Justice Jackson said the High Court judge in Bussey v Anglia
Heating Ltd had felt 'constrained' by relying on data that was
never intended to be used as a yardstick for making claims.

Guidelines produced 40 years ago about acceptable levels of
asbestos fibres in the air have been used as the test for
assessing the claims of victims since the ruling in Williams v
the University of Birmingham in 2011.

This latest ruling is being hailed by claimant lawyers as an
acknowledgment the application of historic data is wrong, and
that the courts have wrongly applied the measurements as a guide
to employers of a so-called 'safe' level of asbestos in which
people could work.

Caroline Pinfold, an industrial disease solicitor at London firm
Fieldfisher, who represented the claimant in Bussey, said: 'These
data that measured levels of asbestos fibres in the air have been
wrongly applied by employers and their lawyers to deny or delay
claimants the compensation they deserved. I know the ruling will
come as a huge relief for mesothelioma sufferers and their
families who have had their cases put on hold waiting for this
decision.'

'Sadly, many others will have died in the meantime without being
given funds to pursue private immunotherapy treatment that could
have given them some respite.'

Veronica Bussey pursued a claim for compensation against one of
her husband's former employers after he died in 2016 from cancer
associated with asbestos.

In May last year, His Honour Judge Yelton decided he was bound by
Williams, but the Court of Appeal ruling means that judgment is
set aside and the case remitted for determination on the issue of
liability.

Lord Justice Moylan, agreeing with Jackson LJ, said there were
particular concerns about the categorisation of risks.

With a note that will be of interest to all litigation lawyers,
he added: 'To seek to address whether a particular risk is
acceptable or unacceptable could well lead to confusion rather
than assisting the court in determining the critical question of
the foreseeability of the relevant risk.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Courtroom Site of New Talc Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that a courtroom in Florida is the
scene of the state's first trial accusing a talc company of
causing a man's malignant mesothelioma. Lawsuits accusing
asbestos companies of causing people's mesothelioma have been
with us for decades, and have resulted in billions of dollars in
compensation being awarded to the victims of asbestos exposure.

But a new phase of mesothelioma trials is being seen across the
United States. People diagnosed with the rare and fatal form of
cancer are now charging talc companies with the same level of
negligence as asbestos companies have been accused of in the
past, and are saying that these companies failed to warn of the
presence of asbestos in their products.

The talc mesothelioma lawsuit has been filed by Robert Lord and
his wife Lola. They claim that Vanderbilt Minerals LLC sold
asbestos-contaminated talc products to his employer, Florida Tile
Company, without providing adequate warnings about its presence.
The company's attorneys are arguing that there is no scientific
evidence that the company's talc caused his illness and that the
tissue samples submitted by Mr. Lord contained a kind of asbestos
not found in their products.

The Florida talc mesothelioma case is different from others being
heard around the country because it involves industrial talc
exposure rather than exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc found
in household or cosmetic products. Instead, the talc that Mr.
Lord was exposed to came from components of ceramics. Other
industrial talc lawsuits could involve chemical coatings, paper
and plastics. It is expected that this case will take
approximately two to three weeks before a verdict is handed down.

The revelations of talc's asbestos-contamination has created a
sea-change in the public's awareness of mesothelioma, the harm
that it does, and the significant risk that it continues to pose.
If you have been diagnosed with this rare and fatal form of
cancer and you need information about resources, call  1-800-692-
8608 to speak to Mesothelioma.net's compassionate Patient
Advocates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court of Appeals Flips Ruling in "Bussey"
----------------------------------------------------------
Toby Scott, Esq. -- toby.scott@clydeco.com -- at Clyde & Co. LLP,
writing for Lexology.com, said that the late Mr Bussey was
employed by Anglia Heating Ltd and exposed to some asbestos
during work between 1965 and 1968. He was also exposed (probably
in greater concentrations) whilst employed by Pump Maintenance
Ltd between 1969 and 1980. It was contended that it was in
consequence of these exposures the deceased contracted
mesothelioma which led to his death in January 2016.

The claim against Pump Maintenance Limited had been settled prior
to litigation and the Claimant, the deceased's widow, conceded
that she would need to give credit for damages received.

The High Court decision

The High Court had held itself to be bound by Williams v
University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242, and found that a
widow's claim for damages following her husband's death from
mesothelioma failed.

Mrs Bussey was unable to prove, on the balance of probabilities,
that the levels of his exposure to asbestos, during the course of
his employment as a plumber with the Defendant (in 1965-1968),
had exceeded that set out in TDN13 of 1970. As such, the risk of
the deceased contracting mesothelioma was not foreseeable.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal on two grounds:

   1. The determination of the level of exposure;
   2. The application of Williams to the facts of this case.

The Court of Appeal

Although the Court of Appeal rejected the Claimants application
to make a factual determination on breach of duty, Mrs Bussey has
been granted leave to appeal on the following grounds:

   1. TDN13 is not a touchstone for determining whether the level
of exposure to asbestos is 'safe'. It is merely to be used as
guidance and sets out the levels of exposure which would trigger
a prosecution by the Factory Inspectorate.

   2. The decision in Williams is not to be regarded as
incorrect. The Court of Appeal distinguish Williams from Bussey
on the grounds that the deceased in Williams had been exposed to
lower levels of asbestos than the deceased in Bussey and for a
shorter period of time. Therefore the total exposure was
different in each case.

   3. The only gloss the Court of Appeal intends to place on
Williams is that the judgment "should not be read as making TDN13
a universal test of foreseeability in mesothelioma cases".

   4. It was relevant that neither Jeromson v Shell Tankers UK
Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 100 nor Maguire v Harland and Wolff PLC
[2005] EWCA Civ 1 were cited in Williams as it affected the
approach (not the result) adopted by the court. The outcome may
have remained the same, however it would not have been suggested
that TDN13 was a general yardstick for determining the issue of
foreseeability.

   5. When determining foreseeability it is necessary for the
court to look at:

      1. What information should a reasonable employer in the
defendant's position at the relevant time have acquired?

      2. Taking this into account, what are the risks the
employer should have foreseen?

      3. Did the employer implement precautionary measures to
reduce those risks?

   6. The judiciary disagreed on Aikens LJ's use of the phrase
"an unacceptable risk of asbestos-related injury". Jackson LJ
agreed with the inclusion of 'unacceptable' as "anyone who works
or lives in proximity to asbestos faces some risk of
mesothelioma". Whilst it is not possible to eliminate the risk
altogether, it is possible to implement precautionary measures to
reduce the risk and the remaining risk following the measures
would be deemed 'unacceptable'.

   7. However, the majority (Underhill LJ and Moylan LJ) held
categorising risks as acceptable and unacceptable would lead to
confusion. It is particularly problematic to determine whether a
risk is acceptable in the context of mesothelioma claims as there
is no safe level of exposure to asbestos dust.

   8. The Court of Appeal did not have a full transcript of the
evidence, nor did the judges hear oral evidence from the experts.
On that basis the Court of Appeal felt it was not in a position
to determine liability and therefore remitted the case back to
the High Court.

What can we learn?

   * It has been suggested that the decision in Williams handed
the defendants something of a windfall in defending claims on
breach on the basis that exposures prior to and during the
currency of the hygiene standards set by TDN13 would be regarded
as acceptable and not actionable if, and with expert evidence,
defendants could establish levels below the guidance (even if,
adopting the precautionary approach exposed by Hale LJ meant that
the risk could not be ignored).  This led to the potential
anomaly of exposures occurring prior to the publication of TDN13
could be in potential breach of duty whereas subsequent exposures
could not (per Williams).

   * Nonetheless this does not mean that defences as to breach
are doomed to failure.Mr Bussey was exposed to asbestos
concentrations substantially greater than those for Mr Williams
and came close to those mentioned in TDN13.

   * Whilst declining Mr Bussey's invitation to make factual
finding as to liability, the Court concluded that the Defendant
was not in a position to assess whether Mr Bussey's exposure was
liable to cause mesothelioma, but it did have available to it
precautions that could lead to the unknown or variable risk.

   * To this extent employers appear to have lost the windfall
and now need to establish on the basis of then available
literature, that exposures were sufficiently low to enable an
employer to discount the risk.

   * Lord Justices Underhill and Moylan provided supporting
unanimous judgments but went further than Lord Justice
Jackson.They rejected as unhelpful Jackson LJs categorisation of
risks as "acceptable" or "unacceptable". Underhill LJ preferred a
lower threshold for precautions as arising when the risk core is
"significant" (i.e. more than fanciful).

   * It is only in very low exposure cases that an employer is
likely to be able to demonstrate the absence of constructive
knowledge of a significant risk.Beyond those cases the two
supporting judges clearly envisage the employer taking
precautions on a prospective basis.

   * The case has been re mitted to HHJ Yelton to re-determine
liability in the light of these findings, although it is likely
that the case will be settled prior to this.

   * Whilst Mrs Bussey's case has been sent back to the court of
first instance for re-trial the Court of Appeal clearly took the
view following Jeromson that in heavy exposure cases an employer
cannot rely upon is own ignorance as to exposure levels and take
refuge in TDN13; because the employer is not in a position in any
event to know whether it met the standard. In such circumstances
the employer is expected to do its best and adopt a precautionary
approach.

   * The said, employers who can demonstrate minimal exposure
levels will not necessarily find themselves liable by virtue of
Jeromson and this ruling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurich Reaches Landmark Cancer Treatments Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Shaw, writing for Law360, reported that a U.K. cancer
patient has secured a groundbreaking deal with Zurich Insurance
agreeing to pay for future medical therapies that are yet to be
discovered, his lawyers told Law360.

Irwin Mitchell LLP said that Zurich Insurance PLC has agreed to
cover future treatments for James Casey, a 63-year-old father of
three from the northern English town of Halifax, once new
treatments become available. Casey suffers from the lung cancer
mesothelioma, caused by working with asbestos as an engineer in
mills and factories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Firm Must Face Insurers' Payback Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reported that a Texas federal
court refused to toss a suit from three health insurers that
claims a law firm failed to pay the companies money out of its
clients' asbestos settlement funds, asking the parties for
additional information but saying the suit could remain for now.

U.S. District Judge Sim Lake dismissed one claim for unjust
enrichment that Humana Inc., United Healthcare Services and Aetna
Inc. made against the national asbestos firm Shrader & Associates
LLP, but ruled the remaining claims could stay.

The case is Humana, Inc. et al v. Shrader & Associates, LLP, Case
Number 3:16-cv-00354 (S.D. Tex.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SF Firm Settles Appeal of $1.1MM Sanction
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Strickler, writing for Law360, reported that a San
Francisco law firm hit with a $1.12 million sanction for
"egregious" discovery misconduct and a failure to investigate and
turn over thousands of documents withheld by a client in an
asbestos case has had the order vacated by a Hawaii state court
as part of a settlement deal.

In an unusual post-settlement order, state Circuit Court Judge
James H. Ashford granted a joint motion from plaintiffs William
and Michelle Schane and the sanctioned firm, Hugo Parker LLP, to
vacate the underlying findings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Can't Toss Charges
--------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reported that disgraced former New
York lawmaker Sheldon Silver lost a bid to dismiss an indictment
on corruption charges, as a federal judge rejected his arguments
for trimming or tossing claims the Second Circuit vacated over
jury instructions it found improper in light of the high court's
2016 McDonnell ruling.

Silver and Manhattan federal prosecutors had both recently filed
motions in limine roughly a month before the expected start of
the retrial of the former New York State Assembly speaker, who
was convicted in 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer on Hook for $43MM in Libby Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dennison of KRTV Great Falls News reported that a state
judge says a Nebraska-based private insurer is liable for an
entire $43 million state settlement of 100 asbestos claims
related to Libby's defunct vermiculite mine -- and the full cost
to the company is likely more.

State District Judge Holly Brown of Bozeman ruled that National
Indemnity Co. -- a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire
Hathaway firm -- improperly tried to deny coverage from an
insurance policy held by the state 45 years ago.

By breaching it "duty to defend," National Indemnity is blocked
under state law from denying coverage, and therefore is liable
for the $43 million settlement that the state agreed in 2011 to
pay those who contracted fatal lung disease by asbestos at the
former Libby mine, the judge said.

Those injured by asbestos had sued the state of Montana,
beginning in 2000, alleging the state concealed its knowledge
that harmful asbestos was in dust at the mine and failed to
inform workers or the public.

But the state discovered it held a policy with National Indemnity
from 1973-1975, insuring the state against personal-injury and
other claims. It notified National Indemnity in early 2002 about
the asbestos lawsuits and potential liability, and said the
company should be liable for the suits' costs.

The Nebraska firm argued it should not be liable for the Libby
asbestos claims -- and, even if it was, the total amount should
be limited to $3 million, or based on pro-rated costs from the
two years the policy was in effect.

Brown, however, disagreed, and said National Indemnity must pay
for any settlement stemming from the Libby cases -- and, all of
the state's defense costs after July 2005, any pre-judgment
interest related to the cases and the state's costs of the
separate case on whether National Indemnity is responsible.

Lawyers for the state weren't immediately available for comment
Monday, on the decision or its full financial implications for
the state.

Attorneys for National Indemnity also could not be reached for
comment Monday.

The case involves scores of claims filed by people harmed by
asbestos from a Libby vermiculite mine, which had been owned and
operated by W.R. Grace & Co.

The asbestos-related lawsuits, filed starting in 2000, said the
state had known as early as 1942 that dust from the mining and
milling operation was "greatly in excess of safe limits."

The suits also said the state had inspected the W.R. Grace
operations in the 1950s and found asbestos in the air of
"considerable toxicity," and had issued death certificates in the
1960s that cited asbestos-related health conditions as the cause.
However, the state failed to inform workers or the public of the
dangers of asbestos fibers at the Libby operations, the suits
said.

An attorney for the state notified National Indemnity in 2002
about its possible liability, stemming from coverage the state
had bought from the company from July 1973-June 1975.

National Indemnity argued it had limited liability, but in 2009,
it agreed to pay $16 million of the $43 million settlement, while
a court settled the issue of who would share the liability. The
company filed action in state court in 2012 to resolve the
matter, and Brown's order ruled for the state.

National Indemnity can appeal the ruling to the Montana Supreme
Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Pleads Guilty of Illegal Asbestos Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cooley, writing for Belleville News-Democrat, reported that
the owner of a construction company pleaded guilty in federal
court after he illegally removed asbestos from a former school in
Okawville.

Joseph Kehrer, owner of Kehrer Brothers Construction, was charged
with failing to notify regulatory authorities before removing
asbestos. The asbestos was removed in February and March 2015
from the former Okawville Elementary School, according to a news
release from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Law requires that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
should have been notified 10 days before work started. Kehrer
admitted in court that he knowingly failed to provide
notification.

The New Baden man's sentencing is scheduled for June 12, where he
faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine up to
$250,000.

In 2015, Kehrer was fined $1.8 million by the U.S. Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for
allegedly bringing in Mexican workers to remove asbestos without
safety gear.

OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels said Kehrer exposed at
least eight workers to asbestos in violation of federal health
standards, then threatened to fire them if they spoke to safety
investigators.

"They spoke no English. He drove them to jobs. He set up a
housing camp for them. They were at his mercy," Michaels said at
the time. "This case stands out because of the outrageous
behavior of Joseph Kehrer."

The Department of Labor said in 2015 that Kehrer Brothers
Construction had an "extensive prior history" with OSHA and had
been inspected 11 times since 2007.

Federal safety officials noted in August 2016 that the business
owner could face criminal charges regarding the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Blames Paper Mill for Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net Blog reportd that it's been six years since
Henry Barabin succumbed to malignant mesothelioma, but his widow
Geraldine is still trying to get justice from those responsible
for his illness.

Barabin was a long-time employee of the Crown-Zellerback Pulp and
Paper Mill located in Camas, Washington. He worked there between
1968 and 2001, holding a variety of jobs throughout the years.
Some of his job responsibilities included working with dryer
felts and cleaning paper machines, exposing him to asbestos
fibers that contaminated the environment.

Mr. Barabin was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in late
2006, and as a result of multiple courses of chemotherapy and
other treatment protocols was able to live with the rare and
fatal form of cancer for almost six years. He died in 2012, but
not before having filed a lawsuit in 2009, which he and his wife
won.

After Mr. Barabin had already died of malignant mesothelioma, two
of the defendants in the case, Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. and
AstenJohnson, Inc. appealed the verdict against them. They based
their appeal on an argument that some of the testimony provided
by expert witnesses in the case should not have been allowed.
Upon hearing the motions to exclude the testimony of several
witnesses, District Judge James. L. Robart of the United States
District Court in Seattle granted some of their requests and
denied others.

The asbestos company attorneys sought to exclude testimony based
on legal issues such as reliability of the studies on which their
testimony was based, the theory on which witnesses based their
testimony, and the fact that the witnesses did not exactly
reconstruct the conditions that exposed Mr. Barabin to asbestos
before providing testimony. The court disagreed on many of these
issues, and allowed the majority of the Barabins' witnesses'
testimony to be included at retrial. Following this decision,
AstenJohnson agreed to a settlement with Ms. Barabin, leaving
only Scapa Dryer Fabrics to pursue their appeal of the verdict
against them.

Though asbestos companies will take every opportunity to fight
having to provide justice to those who they sickened, it has been
well established that exposure to asbestos causes malignant
mesothelioma. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related disease and you need
information about treatment, your rights, or any other resource,
the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Call us today
at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Arconic for Dad's Lung Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a woman
alleges her father's cancer-related death was caused by asbestos
exposure during his career.

Kristi Hester, individually and as special representative of the
estate of Billy J. Smith, deceased filed a complaint on Feb. 23
in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Arconic Inc., The
Budd Corp., Maremont Corp., et al. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Smith's life, he was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. She
alleges that on or about Feb. 23, 2016, he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, which
ultimately led to his death on July 1, 2016.

The plaintiff holds Arconic Inc., The Budd Corp., Maremont Corp.,
et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly intentionally
included asbestos fibers in their products when they knew that it
had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect 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 requests a trial by jury and seeks actual and
compensatory damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by
Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-128


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Shuts Down Hoddle Street
-------------------------------------------------------
ABC Online reported that the asbestos was found near Studley
Street, close to Collingwood College and the public housing
flats, and is likely from old sewers and underground water pipes.

VicRoads said work would not resume until the location had been
made safe.

However it said the amount of asbestos was small and there was
"no health or safety risk to pedestrians, local residents or
people living or driving on the busy road".

"The affected area has been contained with exclusion zones set up
to ensure the safety of the community and workers on site,"
VicRoads said in a statement.

"All relevant safety procedures have been put in place and
qualified hygienists are now supervision works in the area."

WorkSafe has also been notified.

It is understood there will be additional soil testing before
there are any further excavations at the site.

The works are part of the Streamlining Hoddle Street project
where a third lane is being added to allow vehicles to get onto
the freeway and improve the traffic flow.

There will also be a dedicated bus lane from Victoria Street to
the Eastern Freeway.

The works also include intersection upgrades that will give
longer green lights to people travelling straight along Hoddle
Street and Punt Road.

Up to 330,000 people use Hoddle Street and Punt Road every day.
Last week, work on part of the $11-billion Metro Tunnel rail
project was suspended after workers discovered an asbestos pipe
while digging up St Kilda Road.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Sydney Airport
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Patty of The Canberra Times reported that the Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union claims its members have been
exposed to asbestos at the T2 Sydney Airport loading dock
construction project.

A CFMEU organiser attended the site after workers reported safety
concerns to the union and complained his legal right of entry to
the site was blocked by the head contractor.  The union said
Safework NSW had failed to identify asbestos containing material
that was being broken up and excavated inappropriately.

CFMEU NSW Assistant Secretary Rob Kera said the union had a legal
right to step in and represent its members when they raised
safety concerns.

"Safework -- the safety regulator -- took five hours to turn up,
wrongly advised the builder that our organiser shouldn't be
allowed on site, and then failed to identify the deadly asbestos
right in front of them," Mr Kera said.

"There is absolutely no safe level of exposure to asbestos
fibres, which is why workers are so angry that their health has
been put at risk."

A spokesman for Sydney Airport declined to comment about the
asbestos safety issue and referred the inquiry to SafeWork NSW.
A spokesman for SafeWork NSW said it responded to a union request
about a right of entry issue at an excavation site at Sydney
Airport Domestic Terminal 2 Loading Dock on March 1 and attempted
to address the issue.

The spokesman said SafeWork had been notified about asbestos
removal on the site last year.

"During the inspection SafeWork NSW also investigated concerns
with the amenities and a burst pipe at the site," the spokesman
said.

"SafeWork NSW was notified about licensed asbestos removal work
at the site in November 2017 and a remediation plan that complies
with work health and safety laws is in place.

"SafeWork NSW will continue to monitor work health and safety at
the site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Legal Charges Filed on Asbestos Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Macau Daily Times reported that no further legal action has been
taken following the presence of asbestos in demolition work
carried out in a plot located in Taipa at Padre Tomas Pereira
Avenue. The demolition and construction works were conducted
illegally and a local school was affected.

In January, several parents from the Macau Anglican College
refused to bring their children to school following the discovery
of asbestos, which can cause serious chronic respiratory disease,
in the vicinity.

The toxic material was discovered as a rooftop was being
demolished in the area.

Questioned by the Times, the Land, Public Works and Transport
Bureau (DSSOPT), stated that it has issued an embargo order to
the owner of the construction site, and that the work was
suspended -- as has been previously reported.

The bureau's statement implied that no further fines were handed
out to the owner, despite the fact that the works were conducted
with no legal permits, and that they put the schoolchildren at
risk.

"In order to ensure that materials containing asbestos do not
impact the environment, the board of the Environmental Protection
Services (DSPA) has commissioned a professional body to carry out
the inspection. So far, there have been no abnormal situations,"
it noted.

"The DSPA also required the site manager to minimize pollution
and carry out subsequent control work, according to expert
suggestions, until the safety of the site is confirmed," DSSOPT
added.

The Times contacted the principal of the school, Robert
Alexander, to enquire whether the school has filed or is planning
to file a legal complaint against the site owner. However, he
only noted that the school currently has no updates on the
related matter.

"We have no further updates regarding the asbestos issue at this
stage," the principal replied. No supplementary information was
provided.

According to a parent, the school is working with parents to put
a plan in place to deal with future issues and to ensure that all
parents receive up to date information and bulletins.

"A new one [Whatsapp group] was set up to get input on creating
better communication between the school and home but that's just
turned into a forum for any school matters and not it's original
set up," said the parent.

Previously, parents to whom the Times spoke, expressed their
belief that the site owner should be investigated and eventually
sued for putting the public in danger.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Asbestos Drama Lead to Ward Crackdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Thomson of Scottish Daily Record reported that people were
ordered inside a ward after dust stirred up by workers removing
asbestos triggered a fire alarm with one patient claiming they
were then locked inside.

"So it was really hard to keep it together and be strong for them
when I didn't know if it was gonna be OK or not."

Many residents also reported power outages and the first phone
calls to SES came in at 3pm, according to the Singleton Argus.

"The 10-minute storm was when the most damage occurred. Then we
received that big downpour soon after," NSW SES community
engagement officer Simone Burrows said

"The strong winds not only knocked trees over, but also onto
people's fences and sheds. Seven homes were missing their roofs,
too."

The SES received 37 calls by 7pm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Overseeing Asbestos Cases Reassigned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown of New York Daily News reported that the
Manhattan judge overseeing asbestos cases will be reassigned
after just six months on the job, leading one activist to say the
move reinforces the court's toxic reputation for "chaos and
corruption."

Justice Lucy Billings was appointed coordinating judge of
asbestos litigation on Aug. 1.

Top brass with the Office of Court Administration wanted Billings
to come up with fresh ideas to expedite cases, but that did not
happen, a court official said.

The asbestos backlog remains the most problematic in Manhattan
Supreme Court's civil term. One source estimated there were 500
active asbestos cases and 1,000 others that were essentially
dormant.

"Asbestos cases, by their nature, are extremely complex and thus
represent a large part of the Court's backlog of cases," a courts
spokesman said.

But rumors were swirling that Billings had been too tough on the
firms bringing the cases that often result in multimillion-dollar
settlements.

"Sacking Justice Billings after only a few months certainly looks
suspicious. This court is historically corrupt and chaotic. It
has been a 'Judicial Hellhole' for three years straight," said
Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance
of New York.

"Reassigning a key judge after just six months only adds to the
appearance of chaos and corruption."

The decision to move Billings comes after Judge Deborah Kaplan
was appointed administrative judge of the civil term in Manhattan
in December.

Kaplan "was recently appointed to the civil term to specifically
look for innovative ways to address court operations and case
inventories. In doing so, court personnel, both judicial and
nonjudicial, may be reassigned," the courts spokesman said.

Several sources said that Billings has handled the cases before
her expeditiously -- but that a massive backlog held at 60 Centre
St. still has not been transferred over to her courtroom on 71
Thomas St.

The trial of disgraced former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
pulled back the curtain on shady aspects of asbestos litigation
in New York, where verdicts are triple the national average.

It emerged that the influential firm Weitz & Luxenberg -- where
Silver was of-counsel despite doing no legal work -- was given
preferential access to potential jurors in the civil courthouse.
The practice was discontinued and Silver -- who raked in big
bucks referring cases to the firm, which boasts over $17 billion
in verdicts and settlements -- was cut loose amid corruption
allegations.

Silver is awaiting retrial on those charges.

A courts official insisted the decision to remove Billings was
not due to complaints by attorneys on either side of asbestos
litigation.

Emily Jane Goodman, a retired Manhattan Supreme Court judge, said
Billings was known as an expert in asbestos and related fields.

"Ironically, sometimes expertise is not appreciated in the
courts," said Goodman, who had no knowledge of why Billings was
transferred.

Lester Brickman, professor emeritus at Cardozo School of Law and
a top authority on asbestos litigation, said New York City's
asbestos court was one of several in the country that is "less
than neutral" due to rules favoring plaintiffs.

Rules regarding consolidation of cases, as well as case
management orders, "deliberately weighs the scales of justice in
favor of plaintiffs," Brickman said.

Court administrators have Billings' replacement in mind but were
not ready to make an announcement, officials said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Baden Contractor Guilty of Asbestos Offense
----------------------------------------------------------------
WJBD Online reported that a New Baden man has pleaded guilty to a
felony offense of failure to notify regulatory authorities prior
to removing asbestos material. Joseph Kehrer will be sentenced on
June 12th in U.S. District Court in Benton.

Kehrer admitted to causing the removal of a combined amount of
material containing asbestos greater than 160 square feet during
the renovation of the former Okawville Elementary School in
Okawville without prior required notification to the IEPA.

The offense carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment
followed by three years of supervised release and a fine up to
$250,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Passes Company-Friendly Asbestos Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Griffin of St. Louis Public Radio reported that the
Missouri House has passed legislation designed to reduce the
number of asbestos lawsuits filed in the state.

The bill would require plaintiffs to submit their medical
histories as evidence, including things not related to their
claim. It would also make it easier for defendants to seek
delays, and, if they lose, it would allow them within a year's
time to ask a judge for a reversal under certain conditions.

Right now we are known as the Sue-Me State, not the Show-Me State
-- the Sue-Me State," said the bill's sponsor Rep. Bruce DeGroot,
R-Chesterfield. "This bill protects our people -- nobody wants to
do business in the state of Missouri, because every time our
businesses get sued, they get creamed."

The measure is part of a continued push by Republican lawmakers
and Gov. Eric Greitens to make it harder to sue large
corporations and small-business owners, known in the legal
community as tort reform.

"Right now, the Johns Mansville's, the Owens-Corning's -- those
people are all bankrupt," DeGroot said on the House floor. "You
know who the plaintiffs' attorneys are going after now? They're
going after mom-and-pop stores in the districts that you
represent."

Opponents on both sides of the aisle called the bill cruel,
saying it would result in some asbestos victims dying before
receiving justice. Rep. Mark Ellebracht, D-Liberty, began his
criticism by imitating the breathing of someone with
mesothelioma. After being gaveled to stop, he said he was
actually impersonating the Missouri House suffocating the
constitutional rights of its citizens.

"These are people who have dedicated their lives to our service
in the military, for the police force, for firefighters,
construction workers, school teachers in dilapidated buildings,"
Ellebracht said. "I hope that you can sleep at night, without
mechanical assistance, as so many people who will suffer and die
from mesothelioma require."

Republican Jay Barnes of Jefferson City, who's an attorney, also
criticized the bill. Using firefighters as an example, he said
they would have to prepare claims against the owners of every
possible site where they could have been exposed to asbestos and
do so within 30 days of filing suit.

"How can they know that? They don't know where the asbestos came
from," Barnes said.

For those who discover they have a disease caused by asbestos,
Barnes said they sometimes only have three to six months to live
from that point.

"They can't necessarily do all of the legwork needed to file suit
before they die, and when they die, the evidence of where they
were exposed dies with them," he said. "They suffocate to death
and are never able to have their day in court against the
companies who poisoned them."

But Rep. Kevin Corlew, R-Kansas City, said the current system is
unfair because it allows asbestos plaintiffs to seek 100 percent
damages from each possible place they could have been exposed.
Corlew and other supporters say the bill would set up a system in
which a case with multiple defendants would result in those
defendants equally sharing the burden of paying damages.

The bill passed 96-48, with several Republicans joining Democrats
in voting "no." It now goes to the Missouri Senate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies from Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------
Hereford Times reported that a 70-year-old woman died after being
exposed to asbestos during her career.

Marilyn Beddow died on December 12 last year at St Michael's
Hospice.

A post mortem revealed she died from peritoneal mesothelioma
which was complicated by bronchopneumonia.

The inquest at Herefordshire Coroner's Court heard Ms Beddow, who
lived in Thistledown Grove in Hereford, had worked at a number of
different places during her career.

The inquest heard she might have been exposed to asbestos while
she worked as a customer services manager at Joseph Ash Ltd
between 1998 and 2005.

The factory in Mortimer Road had asbestos within the building
structure.

Coroner Mark Bricknell said: "There is no evidence of her having
any hobbies or other interests which may have accounted for
exposure to asbestos. Nearly all mesothelioma is caused by
asbestos exposure. I am satisfied, therefore, on the balance of
probability she was exposed to asbestos during the course of her
employment."

He concluded Ms Beddow died as a consequence of an industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Burning Asbestos Debris
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Vaughn of Pamplin Media Group reported that the
demolition of a house in Scappoose in 2016 led to the owner and a
hired contractor being fined by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for asbestos violations.

The DEQ says Ryan James Schumann owns a property at 54031 Sam
Blehm Road in Scappoose. In December 2016, he hired Robert Lee
Rook, who owns Robert Rook Contractor, based in Seal Rock, to
demolish the house and get rid of debris like vinyl flooring,
furniture and other materials.

Investigators say much of the household debris, which contained
asbestos, was burned at Schumann's request, emitting toxic fumes.
Oregon prohibits openly burning potentially toxic household items
like flooring, furniture, wires and other materials.

DEQ fined Robert Rook Contractor $16,000 for "mishandling
asbestos and illegally burning household material," a DEQ news
release states.

Schumann was fined $23,000.

Enforcement letters sent to the contractor and Schumann from DEQ
indicate the home was never surveyed for asbestos.

"Vinyl flooring in the residence contained 20 percent chrysotile
asbestos," the letter states.

Robert Rook Contractor didn't have proper asbestos training or
licensing, according to the state agency.

Asbestos fibers cause lung cancer and other illnesses, the DEQ
notes.

"There is no known safe level of exposure. To protect public
health, DEQ requires training and licensing for those who handle
materials containing asbestos."

Rook's enforcement letter also indicates the Scappoose Fire
District responded to reports of a fire at the home on Sam Blehm
Road, where the contractor was burning materials, on three
separate days in December 2016.

A licensed asbestos abatement contractor would have known how to
remove the asbestos-containing materials and how to properly
contain, label and dispose of the materials to prevent emissions
of asbestos fibers into the air," the DEQ letter states.

Both Schumann and Rook have the option to appeal the fines, or
complete a supplemental environmental project in lieu of paying
fees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Union Boss to Retire Early
-----------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Man Today reported that Mr Holmes, the island's regional
officer for Unite, has stage one chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD), brought on by working with asbestos in a shipyard
as an apprentice aged 18.

He told the Courier: 'We were originally told it wasn't harmful
but I remember us all being told a while later of the risks.

'To be honest, my health isn't the best. I've got a good few
years left but it is unfair to stay on and not be able to give it
my fullest.

'I know the path I'm on, I've had family in the past die from
asbestosis, at the moment there isn't a shadow showing on X-rays,
but I made the decision with my family to step down.'

Mr Holmes says at his age of 59, turning 60 in April, his
socialist belief is as strong as ever. He has always had a sense
of right and wrong, for fighting battles for those who are weaker
than others and that is what he will be most proud of from his
career.

He says whoever takes over will be able to rely on him for
assistance in a strictly part- time capacity and believes they
face a tough time ahead.

'We have gone back to an escalation of privatisation, driven by
the Chamber of Commerce.

'This government is not investing in the public sector, which is
portrayed poorly.

'It does, however, lack investment by government which means
services must go, eventually it comes to the public to decide
what they want.'

Mr Holmes went on to offer the example of the jobs at risk at
University College Isle of Man, which was reported in the Isle of
Man Examiner as proof of lack of investment in the public sector.

He has previously called for asbestos compensation claims to be
made easier in the island following the case of Peter Quirk, who
died in 2014 after contracting mesothelioma due to being exposed
to asbestos while working for Heron & Brearley.




                            *********


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  * * *