CAR_Public/180504.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Friday, May 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 90



                            Headlines


535 HUDSON: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. New York
411LOCALS.COM: "Menichiello" Suit Sues for Invasion of Privacy
ABILITY RECOVERY: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. New York
ALL SHORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Prather" Suit in N.D. Georgia

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Studer Says
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Allen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
BAI BRANDS: Faces "Branca" Suit in S.D. California
BED BATH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thomas" Class Suit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rickman Sues Over Diesel Vehicles' Emission

CANCER TREATMENT: Faces "DeJesus" Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York
CBA OF GA: Faces "Esnault" Suit in N.D. Georgia
CBOE EXCHANGE: Accused by "Koza" Suit of Manipulating CBOE VIX
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York

CGI FEDERAL: Faces "Tollini" Suit in California Superior Court
CREDIT COUNSEL: Faces "Hayes" Suit in N.D. Georgia
DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, McCray Says
DOC POPCORN: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
DREW-MASSA TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Ladino" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ELDERPLAN INC: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
ELITE LABOR: Smith Sues Over Violations of FLSA and IMWL
ENERGY RESOURCES: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D. New York
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Justice" Suit in M.D. North Carolina
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Vizza" Suit in C.D. California

EYERIDE LLC: Faces "Wheat" Suit in S.D. Florida
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Rubin" Suit Alleging Inadequate Security
FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Malskoff Over Illegal Access of Users' Info
FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Renken for Accessing Users' Communications
FOOD SYSTEMS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York

GLAMOUR NIGHT: Faces "Osorio" Suit in S.D. New York
GURNEY'S INN: "Sparks" Suit Wants to Stop Squeeze-Out Merger
HAMILTON GROUP: Faces "Eaton" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HERTZ CORP: Faces "Kurth" Suit in N.D. Illinois
INT'L CRICKET: Faces "Dodson" Suit in E.D. New York

JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to CNB
KEYSPAN CORP: Faces "Weis" Suit in E.D. New York
KOBE ENTERPRISES: Shin Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
KOTO JAPANESE: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D. New York
LA TABERNA: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York

LAZER SPOT: Faces "Godinez" Suit in California Superior Court
M & J WELL: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
MASON DIXON: Faces "Bermudez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
METHOD RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Spencer" Suit

MILLENNIAL SOLUTIONS: Sued by Melingonis for Invasion of Privacy
NAISMITH MEMORIAL: Faces "Lazarev" Suit in E.D. New York
NAISMITH MEMORIAL: "Elstein" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Moss Seeks Redress Over Racial Discrimination

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Stankiewicz" Suit in N.D. Illinois
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Faces "Blives" Suit in S.D. Florida
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Morgan" Suit in E.D. New York
ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Duval" Suit in California Superior Court

PESCE PASTA: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Pozzuolo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ROSALES TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Ordonez Says
ROSEWOOD COLONY: Faces "Fenner" Suit in M.D. Florida
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Pang" Suit Over Defective Smartphones

SE INDEPENDENT: Faces "Colon" Suit in M.D. Florida
SENTRY LIFE: "Maxon" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin
STATE FARM: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind People, Suit Says
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces "Leadford" Class Suit in Del.
TINDER INC: Faces "Kim" Class Suit Over Age Discrimination

TD BANK: "Lawrence" Class Suit Transferred to South Carolina
TOTAL CARD: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia
TWO BOOTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSCORR LLC: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Smalley" Suit in E.D. Texas

UNITED STATES: Faces "Calapristi" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Chhoeun" Suit
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Sued by Beaulieu Over Removal of Directors
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Cummings" Suit in N.D. Mississippi
WESTERN UNION: Faces "Frazier" Suit in D. Colorado

XIOS INT'L: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc Has $220MM PCC Liability at Dec 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $147MM Non-PCC Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4-Bil. Liability at Dec.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 15,427 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Has $60-Mil. Unfavorable Development

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 625 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.3-Bil. Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 336 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $3.5MM for Expenses in 2017
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,737 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.3MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 537 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$38MM for DuPont Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statute of Repose Does Not Bar PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher, Honeywell Wins Summary Judgment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms WECCO Claims as Time Barred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Liquid, et al., Wins Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Refusal to Dismiss Eaton Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Hartford Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Burkart" Remanded to Louisiana State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses "Young" Asbestos PI Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WUPHD Issues Asbestos Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCTV Capture Truck Dumping Asbestos in Driveway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Architect Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Compares Different Asbestos Exposures

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Docker Blames Self for Wife's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Railway Phasing Out Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Johns Island Sealed Off After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Found in Wamberal Beaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers, Students At Risk of Asbestos in School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Cathedral Clean-Up




                            *********


535 HUDSON: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 535 Hudson Realty
LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Zayas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 535 Hudson
Realty LLC and RPB Partners LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03876 (S.D. N.Y., April 30, 2018).

The Defendants purchases and sells collectibles, heirlooms, fine
art, antiques, estate jewelry, classic motorcars, historical
arms, and centuries-old armors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
   Law Offices of James E. Bahamonde, PC
   2501 Jody Court
   North Bellmore, NY 11710
   Tel: (516) 783-9662
   Fax: (646) 435-4376
   Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com


411LOCALS.COM: "Menichiello" Suit Sues for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 411LOCALS.COM; KONSTANTIN STOYANVOV; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:18-cv-
00514 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), arises from the Defendants'
alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading his and class
members' privacy.

411LOCALS.COM is an online marketing business of unknown entity
with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Konstantin Stoyanvov is the president of 411LOCALS.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABILITY RECOVERY: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ability Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Leo Garcia, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ability
Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02459 (E.D.
N.Y., April 26, 2018).

Ability Recovery Services LLC operates as a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL SHORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Shore Paving
Corp. The case is styled as Carlos Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All Shore
Paving Corp. and Jonathan Accardi, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02330 (E.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018).

The Defendants are a paving contractor in Oceanside, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Prather" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate,
LLC. The case is styled as Verlanda Prather, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Interstate, LLC and John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00043-TCB-RGV (N.D. Ga., April 30, 2018).

Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of
automated information processing, long-distance data
transmission, massive data collection and storage, automated
high-speed telecommunications, and contributions to the
management professionalism in credit and collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Studer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Studer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, a Texas limited partnership,
and LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00962-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 26, 2018), is brought
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding that
the Defendants' form debt collection letter violated the FDCPA.

Alltran Financial, LP, is a Texas limited partnership, that acts
as a debt collector.  Alltran operates a defaulted debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers
in virtually every state, including consumers in the state of
Indiana.

LVNV Funding, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company, that
acts as a debt collector.  LVNV operates a nationwide debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers
in virtually every state, including consumers in the state of
Indiana.[BN]

The 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
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  carissa@philippslegal.com

               - and -

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


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Allen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tamica Allen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01865-WSD-JFK (N.D.
Ga., April 30, 2018).

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


BAI BRANDS: Faces "Branca" Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bai Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Branca, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bai Brands, LLC, a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00757-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., April 19, 2018).

Bai Brands is a beverage company founded in 2009 in Princeton,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald Marron, Esq.
   Law Office of Ronald Marron
   651 Arroyo Drive
   San Diego, CA 92103
   Tel: (619) 696-9006
   Fax: (619) 564-6665
   Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


BED BATH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Thomas" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Danyell Thomas, Danielle Brown, Rashaun F. Frazer,
Eleni Miglis, Cheryl A. Strycharz and Andrae Whaley filed an
appeal from a District Court opinion and order entered on
February 21, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled Thomas et al. v. Bed
Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 16-cv-8160, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bed Bath And Beyond, Inc., is a national chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores with stores across the states and has
its principal executive offices in Union, New Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas et al. v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Case No. 18-809, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Danyell Thomas, individually and on behalf
of all other employees similarly situated; Rashaun F. Frazer,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated; Andrae Whaley, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated; Eleni Miglis, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated; Cheryl A.
Strycharz and Danielle Brown are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

Defendant-Appellee Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Sulds, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          Metlife Building
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-6882
          E-mail: suldsj@gtlaw.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rickman Sues Over Diesel Vehicles' Emission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARNER RICKMAN, ZIWEN LI, and GARY REISING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (BMW AG), a corporation organized under the
laws of Germany, Case No. 2:18-cv-04363 (D.N.J., March 27, 2018),
arises from BMW's representations on BMW X5 xDrive35d and 335d
diesel vehicles that they "met emissions standards in all 50
states", that "BMW Efficient Dynamics" meant "Less emissions,"
and that its engines "protect the environment every day," were
"environmentally friendly," and turned nitric oxides "into
environmentally compatible nitrogen and water vapor."

The Plaintiffs allege that BMW's representations were misleading
for failure to disclose its emissions manipulations, namely, that
while the vehicles may have passed emissions testing in a test
environment, software in the vehicles senses when test conditions
are not present, and reduces or turns off emissions controls in
these circumstances.  In contrast to BMW's promises, the
Plaintiffs contend, scientifically valid emissions testing has
revealed that the 2009-2013 X5 and 2009-2011 335d vehicles
("Polluting BMW Vehicles") emit levels of NOx many times higher
than (i) their gasoline counterparts; (ii) what a reasonable
consumer would expect; (iii) what BMW had advertised; (iv) the
Environmental Protection Agency's and certain states' maximum
standards; and (v) the levels set for the vehicles to obtain a
certificate of compliance, which allows them to be sold in the
United States.

BMW North America LLC is a corporation doing business in all 50
states and the District of Columbia, and is organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW USA manufactured,
sold, and warranted the Polluting BMW USA Vehicles throughout the
United States.

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengessellschaft (BMW AG), based in
Munich, Germany, is the parent company of the BMW Group.  BMW AG
is a German company, which develops, produces and sells engines,
engine-equipped vehicles, related accessories and products of the
machinery and metal-working industry as well as the rendering of
services related to the aforementioned items.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, New York,
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

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


CANCER TREATMENT: Faces "DeJesus" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cancer Treatment
Centers of America Global, Inc. The case is styled as Ann Jessica
DeJesus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cancer Treatment Centers of America Global, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03496 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018).

Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Inc. owns and operates
cancer care hospitals.[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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Central Capital Management
Services, L.P. The case is styled as Elizabeth Taubenfliegel, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02556 (E.D. N.Y., April 30, 2018).

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, providing
delinquent receivables resolutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBA OF GA: Faces "Esnault" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBA of GA Inc. The
case is styled as Victoria Esnault, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBA of GA Inc. doing
business as: Credit Bureau Associates of Georgia, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01812-ELR-JKL (N.D. Ga., April 26, 2018).

CBA of GA Inc is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Misty Ann Oaks, Esq.
   The Oaks Firm
   3515 Charlston Court
   Decatur, GA 30034
   Tel: (404) 725-5697
   Fax: (775) 320-3695
   Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

      - and -

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus Zelman, LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Accused by "Koza" Suit of Manipulating CBOE VIX
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KOZA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC., CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., CBOE
FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, and JOHN DOES, Case No. 1:18-cv-02185
(N.D. Ill., March 26, 2018), is a civil action brought against
the Defendants pursuant to the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the
Commodity Exchange Act, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, for damages, costs of suit, injunctive relief and
other relief for their alleged illegal manipulation of the
Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE") Volatility Index ("VIX").

VIX is a widely-used measure of the stock market's expectations
as to volatility, derived from the market prices of certain S&P
500 index options ("SPX Options").

According to the complaint, this manipulation of the VIX has
caused billions of dollars in losses for other investors in VIX
Instruments during the proposed class period.

CBOE Exchange, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.  CBOE Exchange is a
wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Global Markets, Inc., which is
also a Delaware corporation and headquartered in Chicago.  CBOE
Futures Exchange, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago.

The Doe Defendants are those financial institutions that
manipulated VIX Instruments through the collusive trading in and
posting of quotes for SPX Options during the times those SPX
Options trades and quotes were used in the settlement calculation
of VIX Futures and VIX Options, and, relatedly, influenced the
price of VIX-linked Exchange Traded Products ("VIX ETPs").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  blondon@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Taubenfliegel" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Taubenfliegel, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02557 (E.D. N.Y., April 30, 2018).

Credit Services LLC is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CGI FEDERAL: Faces "Tollini" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed CGI Federal Inc. The case
is styled as Fred Tollini, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CGI Federal Inc. a Delaware
Corporation, CGI Technologies and Solutions, inc. a Delaware
Corporation and Does 1-50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18566160 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018).

CGI Federal Inc. provides systems integration and consulting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
   David Yeremian & Associates, Inc.
   535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 230-8380
   Fax: (818) 230-0308
   Email: david@yeremianlaw.com


CREDIT COUNSEL: Faces "Hayes" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Counsel,
Inc. The case is styled as Alisha Hayes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Counsel, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01803-CAP-CMS (N.D. Ga., April 26, 2018).

Credit Counsel Inc. is a national and international debt recovery
firm, with corporate office based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, McCray Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESSERI MCCRAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DEITSCH AND WRIGHT, P.A., Case No. 8:18-cv-00731-EAK-
MAP (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2018), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by, among other
things, conveying to the Plaintiff a false sense of urgency in
its collection letter.

Deitsch and Wright regularly collects or attempts to collect,
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed
or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Road, Suite 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com


DOC POPCORN: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doc Popcorn, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doc
Popcorn, Inc. and Doc Popcorn Franchising L.L.C., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02520 (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2018).

Doc Popcorn Franchising, Inc. produces flavored popcorns. It
offers popcorn in various flavors, such as sweet butter, klassic
kettle, cheesy cheddar, better butter, triple white cheddar,
salt-n-pepper, caramel kettle, hoppin' jalapeno, and sinfully
cinnamon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


DREW-MASSA TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Ladino" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drew-Massa
Transportation LLC. The case is styled as Maricruz Ladino,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Drew-Massa Transportation LLC a California Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 18CV001488 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 26, 2018).

Drew-massa Transportation LLC is a trucking company running
freight hauling business from Salinas, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ELDERPLAN INC: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elderplan Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Elderplan Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03544 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018).

Elderplan, Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The
Organization provides life and health insurance services.
Elderplan serves senior communities in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ELITE LABOR: Smith Sues Over Violations of FLSA and IMWL
--------------------------------------------------------
STEVE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELITE LABOR SERVICES, LTD. d/b/a ELITE STAFFING,
INC., GREENCORE USA-CPG PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a PEACOCK FOODS, and
DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:18-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2018),
challenges the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Mr. Smith alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally, have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard of the rights of employees in, among other
things, failing to pay all regular and overtime wages due,
failing to pay wages in a timely fashion, and failing to keep
accurate payroll records.

Elite Labor Services, Ltd., doing business as Elite Staffing,
Inc., is a corporation of the state of Illinois, which has its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and which
maintains an office location in Peacock's Romeoville facility.

Greencore USA-CPG Partners, LLC, doing business as Peacock Foods,
is a limited liability company of the state of Delaware, which
has its principal place of business in Geneva, Illinois, and
which operates a food preparation facility located at 1001 West
Crossroads Parkway, in Romeoville, Illinois.  The Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


ENERGY RESOURCES: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Energy Resources
Personnel LLC. The case is styled as Armando Vidal Ramirez,
Ignacio Israel CedenoMinero, Daniel Guerrero, Esteban Morales,
Jorge Alberto Jimenez Lopez, Jose Javier Rodriguez Robles also
known as: Javier Rodriguez, Juan Cosme Duran, Misael Mendez,
Ramiro Torres Saenz, Ricardo Trujillo, Roberto Velasquez
Rodriguez, Teodulo Moreno, Elfego Hernandez Gomez, Agustin
Morales, David Luna Perez, Efrain Antonio, Reginaldo Anibal
Rojas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Energy Resources Personnel LLC doing business as:
Dig Inn, Pump 80 Pine LLC doing business as: Dig Inn, 55th Street
Restaurant Operating, LLC doing business as: Dig Inn, Pump 17th
street LLC doing business as: Dig Inn, Pump Holdings, LLC doing
business as: Dig Inn and Adam Eskin, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03711 (S.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018).

Dig Inn is a chain of locally farm sourced restaurants that was
founded by Adam Eskin. In 2011, the first Dig Inn restaurant was
opened in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Justice" Suit in M.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Joy L Justice, formerly
known as: Joy L. Groseclose, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00342-NCT-LPA (M.D. N.C.,
April 27, 2018).

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LEONARD A. BENNETT, Esq.
   CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
   763 J. CLYDE MORRIS BLVD., STE. 1-A
   NEWPORT NEWS, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Vizza" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Residential
Services II, LLC. The case is styled as Peter Vizza, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Equity Residential Services II, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Equity Residential Services, LLC a
Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03342 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2018).

Equity Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment
trust that invests in apartments.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EYERIDE LLC: Faces "Wheat" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eyeride, LLC. The
case is styled as Alexander Wheat and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Eyeride, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Mitech Technology LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Michael Wiegler, individually and DAFNA also known as:
"DAPHNIE" LOW individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60896-BB
(S.D. Fla., April 19, 2018).

The Defendants are engaged in high-end custom video security
systems and associated technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jordan Lee Richards, Esq.
   Jordan Richards, PLLC
   401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 871-0050
   Email: jordan@jordanrichardslaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Rubin" Suit Alleging Inadequate Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN D. RUBIN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC, a Delaware corporation; SCL
GROUP, a United Kingdom company; GLOBAL SCIENCE RESEARCH LTD, a
United Kingdom company; and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-01852-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
March 26, 2018), alleges that Facebook's security practices are
inadequate and their representations to their users are
misleading.

On March 17, 2018, Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower and co-
founder of Cambridge Analytica LLC, revealed that his firm, under
the direction of its Vice President and Secretary, Stephen Kevin
Bannon, had used sensitive and personal information of over 50
million Americans harvested illegally via Facebook to manipulate
American elections.  The breach began in 2014, but Facebook has
still yet to notify its users of the breach in plain violation of
California law, the Plaintiff asserts.

Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business and main operations hub located in Menlo Park,
California.  Facebook is an omni-present social media company,
whose Web site was launched in 2004 and that now has more than
two billion active users.

SCL (Strategic Communication Laboratories) GROUP is a private
British behavioral research and strategic communications company,
which owns and operates Cambridge Analytica LLC.  SCL does
significant business in California.

Cambridge Analytica LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
owned and operated by SCL, involved in data mining and data
analysis.  Cambridge maintains offices in New York and Washington
D.C. and does significant business in California.  Bannon was
Vice President and Secretary of Cambridge until he stepped down
from that position to run Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Global Science Research Ltd. was a United Kingdom company, which
harvested and sold the private information of social media users
for profit.  GSR did significant business in California, but has
since dissolved and its successors in interest are unknown at
this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Malskoff Over Illegal Access of Users' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY MALSKOFF and KENNETH IRVINE, individually and on behalf of
all others v. FACEBOOK INC., CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA(UK) LTD., CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, ROBERT MERCER, and
ALEKSANDR KOGAN, Case No. 2:18-cv-04451 (D.N.J., March 27, 2018),
concerns an alleged severe and unprecedented breach of trust
committed by the Defendants, which allowed Cambridge Analytica to
secretly and unlawfully harvest highly sensitive personal
information of Facebook users.

Cambridge Analytica and its cronies conspired to improperly
obtain personal profile data from nearly 50 million Facebook
users without their consent or knowledge, including the
Plaintiffs and Class members, in excess of any authorization
granted by Facebook and Facebook users, the Plaintiffs allege.
The Plaintiffs contend that despite the fact that it was storing
sensitive information, Facebook failed to protect and safeguard
its users' data and, upon learning of the unauthorized access and
use of its users' information, failed to take reasonable measures
necessary to secure and destroy the data.

Facebook is a Delaware corporation that operates an online social
media and social networking service that allows people to
communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.

Cambridge Analytica is a political consulting firm, which offers
data mining, analysis, and behavioral communication solutions for
the electoral process.  Cambridge Analytica engages in the
business of "behavioral microtargeting" -- the collating and/or
creating and then selling data profiles of individuals, which are
used for targeted advertisements and political campaigning.
Cambridge Analytica was formed by its British parent company, SCL
Group Limited, which offers similar services around the world.

Robert Mercer is a resident of New York City and an American
hedge-fund manager known for his far-right conservative
positions, reportedly invested millions of dollars in Cambridge
Analytica.  Rebekah Mercer (Mercer's daughter) sits on Cambridge
Analytica's Board of Directors.

Aleksandr Kogan is an individual resident of Cambridge, England.
Mr. Kogan contracted to work with Cambridge Analytica and
designed the plan to acquire user data.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  minnes@carellabyrne.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Renken for Accessing Users' Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA RENKEN and SEAN MANNION, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-
01896 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), alleges that Facebook
represented that it would provide consumers with online social
media services, yet failed to disclose that in so doing, it would
surreptitiously collect personal communications information.

In so doing, Facebook violated its own terms of service and
ostensible privacy policies, misled consumers about the benefits
of the transaction, mischaracterized the reason for discounted
social media services, and improperly accessed users' personal
and private communications, the Plaintiffs contend.

Facebook, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
executive offices located in Menlo Park, California.  Facebook
operates a social networking website that allows people to
communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.  Facebook
develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information,
photographs, website links, and videos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292-1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

               - and -

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  jwatson@justice4you.com


FOOD SYSTEMS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Food Systems
Unlimited, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Food Systems Unlimited, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02511 (E.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018).

Food Systems Unlimited is a cutting-edge restaurant management
company that offers a variety of distinct and delicious food
concepts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


GLAMOUR NIGHT: Faces "Osorio" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glamour Night Club
Inc. The case is styled as Fabian Osorio and Marvin Diaz, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Glamour
Night Club Inc., Pacific Station Inc. and Jorge Quito, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-03529 (S.D. N.Y., April
20, 2018).

Glamour Night Club is a Nightclub in Port Chester.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


GURNEY'S INN: "Sparks" Suit Wants to Stop Squeeze-Out Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN SPARKS, individually and on behalf of a class of all
similarly situated Class A shareholders v. GURNEY'S INN RESORT &
SPA, LTD., GEORGE FILOPOULOS, 290 OLD MONTAUK, INC., 290 OLD
MONTAUK ASSOCIATES, LLC and DOES 1-3, Case No. 2:18-cv-01856-JMA-
AKT (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2018), seeks a preliminary and permanent
injunction prohibiting the Defendants from implementing the
current proposed squeeze-out merger.

The Plaintiff alleges that 290 Old Montauk, Inc. (the "Majority
Owner") and its controlling person, George Filopoulos, breached
their fiduciary duties to him and other minority Class A
shareholders/timeshare owners of Gurney's by their acts and
omissions, which have culminated in the imminent majority
squeeze-out merger (the "Proposed Merger") pursuant to which
Majority Owner, through its wholly owned entity, 290 Associates,
will squeeze-out minority owners for an unfair price through an
unfair process in derogation of every fiduciary duty owed by a
Majority Owner to minority owners.

The squeeze-out merger is proposed to be accomplished after a
shareholder vote for which the Plaintiff and the Class have been
provided with only minimal information in an Information
Statement received on March 19, 2018, only 10 days before the
vote and the deadline for Class A shareholders to decide whether
to exercise their rights to elect for an appraisal under New York
Business Corporation Law.

Gurney's Inn Resort & Spa, Ltd., is a New York Corporation formed
in 1981 and owed by the Plaintiff and other minority Class A
shareowners/timeshare owners, and 290 Inc.  Gurney's owns 11.1
acres of oceanfront property in Montauk, New York.  Gurney's
primary sources of income include the collection of maintenance
fees from owners of timeshare units, as well as, guest room
booking revenue and income from the restaurant, spa, and rentals.
Gurney's filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1994 and was
reorganized in 1999.

George Filopoulos is the President of Gurney's and one of its
three directors and co-owner of the Majority Owner.  290
Associates is the Majority Owner of Gurney's by virtue of its
ownership of 83.67% of the issued and outstanding shares of Class
A common stock of Gurney's and control of its Board.  Majority
Owner's co-owner, George Filopoulos, installed himself as
President of Gurney's and is one of its three directors.

290 Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of 290 Associates and was
formed in 2018 to serve as a "Merger-Sub" to facilitate the
proposed squeeze-out merger.  The Doe Defendants are the other
directors of Gurney's, one of whom is an officer of the Majority
Owner's co-owner, a Lloyd Goldman affiliate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: Lee@sfclasslaw.com


HAMILTON GROUP: Faces "Eaton" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Eaton, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hamilton Group Funding, James McCaughan,
and Ira Goldberg, Case No. 1:18-cv-21463-KMW (S.D. Fla., April
13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company located at
1551 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy Suite 300, Sunrise, FL 33323. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              cjones@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
      733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 354-6270
      E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

         - and -

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      Anthony M. Carter, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


HERTZ CORP: Faces "Kurth" Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hertz
Corporation. The case is styled as Kathryne Anne Kurth, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hertz
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02785 (N.D. Ill., April
19, 2018).

The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings
Inc., is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida
that operates 9,700 international corporate and franchisee
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


INT'L CRICKET: Faces "Dodson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Cricket Council. The case is styled as Linden Dodson and Dainty
A. Gladstone, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. International Cricket Council
and David Richardson, in individual representative capacity as
the Chief Executive of the International Cricket Council,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02548-WFK-SMG (E.D. N.Y., April 30,
2018).

The International Cricket Council is the international governing
body of cricket.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary Todd Certain, Esq.
   Certain & Zilberg PLLC
   909 Third Avenue
   28th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-7800
   Fax: (212) 687-0690
   Email: certain@certainlaw.com


JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to CNB
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JACKSONVILLE BANCORP, INC., JOHN C. WILLIAMS, HARMON
B. DEAL, III, JOHN L. EYTH, RICHARD A. FOSS, JOHN M. BUCHANAN,
ANDREW F. APPLEBEE and PEGGY S. DAIDSMEYER, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00889-RDB (D. Md., March 27, 2018), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by
CNB Bank Shares, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, CNB
Acquisition, Inc.

On January 17, 2018, Jacksonville's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CNB
and Merger Sub.  If the Proposed Transaction is approved by
Jacksonville's stockholders, they will receive $33.70 in cash for
each share of Jacksonville common stock they own.

Jacksonville is a Maryland corporation headquartered in
Jacksonville, Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.  Jacksonville is a stock holding
company and wholly owns the savings bank, Jacksonville Savings
Bank.

Non-Party CNB is an Illinois corporation and is a party to the
Merger Agreement.  Non-Party Merger Sub is a Maryland
corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of CNB and a party to the
Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


KEYSPAN CORP: Faces "Weis" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Keyspan Corporation. The
case is styled as Shmuel Weiss, other, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keyspan
Corporation, Stevens Business Service, Inc., Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02543 (E.D. N.Y., April 30, 2018).

KeySpan Corporation operates as a public utility holding company
that distributes natural gas to customers in New York City, Long
Island, and Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
   RC Law Group PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


KOBE ENTERPRISES: Shin Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Kobe Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Kobe Japanese Steak & Sushi, and
Jong Sun, Case No. 3:18-cv-00199-MHL (E.D. Va., March 27, 2018),
alleges violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Shin seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
arising out of the Defendants' FLSA violations.

Kobe Enterprises, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that operates a
restaurant in Richmond, Virginia.  Jong Sun is the owner,
operator, and manager of Kobe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


KOTO JAPANESE: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koto Japanese Steak
House Inc. The case is styled as Chongheng Chen and Jennifer Guo
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Koto Japanese Steak House Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03551 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018).

Koto Japanese Steak House Inc. is a Japanese restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


LA TABERNA: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Taberna del
Alabardero Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. La
Taberna del Alabardero Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03730
(S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018).

La Taberna del Alabardero Inc. operates in the restaurant
industry.[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


LAZER SPOT: Faces "Godinez" Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lazer Spot, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Godinez
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant
to the private attorneys general act (PAGA), Plaintiff v. Lazer
Spot, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. JCCP4973
(Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018).

Lazer Spot, Inc. provides third-party yard management services
and solutions. Its services include spotting, shuttling within
100 air miles, trailer rentals, gate personnel staffing, and
computerized yard management systems and training.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Han, Esq.
   411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: 818.230.7502
   Fax: 818.230.7259
   Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


M & J WELL: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. M & J WELL SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-00057 (W.D.
Tex., March 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendant required and
permitted the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate
them properly for such hours, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

M & J Well Service, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
with its principal place of business located in Odessa, Texas.
The Defendant provides equipment and services to customers in the
oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          Collin J. Wynne, Esq.
          YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


MASON DIXON: Faces "Bermudez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason Dixon
Intermodal. The case is styled as Jonathan Bermudez, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mason Dixon Intermodal and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-
2018-00231903-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., April 26, 2018).

Mason Dixon Intermodal, Inc., doing business as Universal
Intermodal Services, Inc., provides intermodal trucking and
logistics solutions to customers in the United States, Mexico,
and Ontario and Quebec provinces in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq.
   Bradley/Grombacher LLP
   2815 Townsgate Rd, Ste 130
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: (805) 270-7100
   Fax: (805) 270-7589
   Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com


METHOD RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Method Residential
LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Method Residential
LLC doing business as: Roost Apartment Hotel, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03729 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018).

Method Residential LLC provides furnished, fully equipped,
extended stay and temporary luxury apartments in the heart of
Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Spencer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tana Spencer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Tana Spencer v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-00093-BR, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon, Portland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to collect non-business Home Depot store charge card debts
for which no payment has been made on the individual debts for
over four years after default or charge off.

Midland Funding is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, which
purchases portfolios of defaulted consumer debts and collects
them.

The appellate case is captioned as Tana Spencer v. Midland
Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-35234, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Tana Spencer's opening brief is due on May 22,
      2018;

   -- Appellees Gordon, Aylworth & Tami P.C. and Midland Funding,
      LLC's answering brief is due on June 21, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant TANA SPENCER, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark Passannante, Esq.
          BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S.
          1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1220
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 294-0910
          Facsimile: (503) 243-2717
          E-mail: Markpassannante@msn.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AKA Midland Funding NCC-
2 Corp., is represented by:

          David J. Elkanich, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          2300 US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW Fifth Avenue
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 243-2300
          E-mail: David.Elkanich@hklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI P.C. is represented
by:

          Peter D. Eidenberg, Esq.
          Kelly F. Huedepohl, Esq.
          KEATING JONES HUGHES PC
          One SW Columbia, Suite # 800
          Portland, OR 97258-2095
          Telephone: (503) 222-9955
          E-mail: peidenberg@keatingjones.com
                  khuedepohl@keatingjones.com


MILLENNIAL SOLUTIONS: Sued by Melingonis for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Millennial Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Global
Business Lending; Zachary A. Knowles, an Individual; and Tiffani
J. Knowles, an Individual, Case No. 3:18-cv-00610-DMS-KSC (S.D.
Cal., March 26, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently,
knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading his privacy.

Millennial Solutions, LLC, doing business as Global Business
Lending, conducts business in the state of California and in the
County of San Diego.  Millennial Solutions provides Web site and
online tools to help grow ministry or business.  The Individual
Defendants are principal owners and alter egos of Millennial
Solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC
          1775 Hancock Street, Suite 180
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 488-6767
          Facsimile: (619) 488-6767
          E-mail: kevin@lawyerkevin.com


NAISMITH MEMORIAL: Faces "Lazarev" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naismith Memorial
Basketball Hall of Fame, Inc. The case is styled as Dimitriy
Lazarev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02455-ILG-JO (E.D. N.Y., April 26,
2018).

Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame is an American history
museum and hall of fame, located at 1000 Hall of Fame Avenue in
Springfield, Massachusetts.[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


NAISMITH MEMORIAL: "Elstein" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Margie Elstein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles P. Dougherty,
Richard R. Burkhart, Christopher Disantis Ryan J. Levenson,
Mitchell E. Quain, Benjamin I. Rosenzweig, James Silver, R. Tony
Tribeny, and Harding Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1412/2018 was
brought before the New York Supreme Court on April 26, 2018.

Hardings offers new and quality used equipment, maintenance and
equipment repair and service, replacement and OEM parts,
equipment rentals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   RICHARD BRUALDI, ESQ.
   29 BROADWAY, SUITE 2400
   NEW YORK, NY 10006
   Tel: (212) 952-0602

The Defendants are represented by:

   RACHELLE SILVERBERG, ESQ.
   51 WEST 52ND STREET
   NEW YORK, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 403-1299


NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National General
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Drew Bishop, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National General
Insurance Company, Integon National Insurance Company, Stonewood
Insurance Services Inc and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-
2018-00231467-CU-BC-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., April 19, 2018).

National General Insurance, formerly the GMAC Insurance Group is
a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property and casualty
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alan M. Laskin, Esq.
   Law Offices of Alan M. Laskin
   1810 S St, Sacramento
   CA 95811, USA
   Tel: +1 916-329-9010
   Email: laskinlaw.com


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Moss Seeks Redress Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MOSS v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGERS CORPORATION,
individually, and D/B/A AMTRAK, ANDREW KEEFE, individually, and
JOHN PIELLI, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-01262 (E.D. Pa.,
March 26, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
persons similarly situated alleging violations of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Philadelphia Fair
Practices Ordinance.

Mr. Moss is a black African-American male, who resides in Prince
George County, Maryland.  He began working for AMTRAK as a
Manager of Field Operations in June 2011.  He seeks damages to
redress the alleged injuries he has suffered as a result of being
discriminated against by his employer on the basis of his race,
color, and/or national origin, together with retaliation and
hostile work environment.

National Railroad Passengers Corporation is a foreign business
corporation organized and existing by virtue of the Laws of the
District of Columbia.  National Railroad continues to do business
as "AMTRAK" and conducted business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Company provides rail passenger transportation services to
intercity travel markets in the United States.

Andrew Keefe is a resident of the state of New York and is
employed by AMTRAK as a the "Deputy Chief Engineer."  Defendant
Keefe has since been promoted to the position of "AVP Engineering
Maintenance."  John Pielli is a resident in the state of New
Jersey and is employed by AMTRAK as a the "NEC - System Track
Department."  The Individual Defendants held supervisory
authority over the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline H. Miller, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1601
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 391-4790
          E-mail: caroline@dereksmithlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Stankiewicz" Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
("Nationstar"). The case is styled as Michal M. Stankiewicz,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
("Nationstar"), Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03075 (N.D. Ill.,
April 30, 2018).

Nationstar Mortgage LLC provides mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Faces "Blives" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Penn Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Yakov Blives other individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Penn
Financial, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60895-UU (S.D.
Fla., April 19, 2018).

New Penn Financial, LLC offers mortgage lending products and
services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Morgan" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Morgan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02485-ADS-AKT (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018).

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[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


ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Original
Homestead Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Original Homestead Restaurant, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03483 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2018).

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Duval" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific States
Petroluem Inc. The case is styled as Jose Duval, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Pacific States Petroluem Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2018-00231934-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2018).

Pacific States Petroleum, Inc. was founded in 2002. The Company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of crude
petroleum and petroleum products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Han, Esq.
   411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: 818.230.7502
   Fax: 818.230.7259
   Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


PESCE PASTA: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Pesce Pasta Quattro Inc.
The case is styled as Carlos Tapia and Gabriel Martinez, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Pesce
Pasta Quattro Inc., James Marchignoli and Christopher Marchignol
as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03865 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 30, 2018).

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Pozzuolo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Robert J. Pozzuolo and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01797-TJS (E.D.
Penn., April 30, 2018).

Portfolio Recovery says it is committed to helping customers
resolve debt and design a payment plan that fits their
budget.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   CARY L. FLITTER, Esq.
   FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
   450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101
   NARBERTH, PA 19072
   Tel: (610) 822-0782
   Fax: (610) 667-0552
   Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


ROSALES TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Ordonez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER ORDONEZ, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. ROSALES TRUCKING, ROBERTO A. ROSALES,
and MANUEL J. ROSALES, Case No. 3:18-cv-00724-C (N.D. Tex., March
26, 2018), alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's minimum and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rosales Trucking is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Houston,
Texas.  The Individual Defendants are corporate officers, owners
or managers of Rosales Trucking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


ROSEWOOD COLONY: Faces "Fenner" Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosewood Colony
Owners Association Inc. The case is styled as Hillary Fenner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rosewood Colony Owners Association Inc. and Clayton
& McCulloh, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00653-GAP-TBS
(M.D. Fla., April 26, 2018).

Rosewood Colony Owners Association Inc. is engaged in the
business of collecting consumer debts, from consumers in the
state of Florida and in Orange County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bryant Dunivan, Jr., Esq.
   Owen & Dunivan, PLLC
   615 E. De Leon St.
   Tampa, FL 33606
   Tel: (813) 502-6768
   Fax: (813) 330-7924
   Email: bdunivan@owendunivan.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Pang" Suit Over Defective Smartphones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE PANG AND TIMO MASALIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01882-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), arises
from alleged defect in Samsung's smartphone devices.

The Plaintiffs purchased smartphone devices from Samsung, only to
have the covers over the rear cameras spontaneously shatter
within a few weeks of purchase, according to the complaint.  This
defect is common and known to Samsung, as Samsung has received
countless complaints about it.  But Samsung continues to hide
this defect from consumers and has refused to repair it even when
covered under its warranty, the Plaintiffs allege.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is a corporation existing
under the law of the state of New York and is headquartered in
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.  Samsung regularly conducts business
throughout the state of California.  Samsung subsidiaries and
affiliates occupy a large presence in California.

Samsung Research America is located in Silicon Valley (in
Mountain View, California), with offices in Southern California.
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., a multi-billion-dollar subsidiary of
Samsung Electronics, Ltd., is based in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Woerner, Esq.
          Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
                  agaffney@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 463-3900
          Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
          E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com


SE INDEPENDENT: Faces "Colon" Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SE Independent
Delivery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Colon, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SE Independent Delivery Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01034-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 27,
2018).

SE Independent Delivery Services, Inc. offers transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher R. Turner, Esq.
   William G. Osborne, PA
   1305 E Robinson St
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 796-2278
   Fax: (407) 630-8737
   Email: eservice@crtlegal.com

      - and -

   William G. Osborne, Esq.
   William G. Osborne, PA
   1305 E Robinson St
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 894-1534
   Fax: (407) 894-1535
   Email: Bill@osborneattorneys.com


SENTRY LIFE: "Maxon" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed August 29, 2018 captioned Prudence
F. Maxon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sentry Life Insurance Company, Case No. 6:17-cv-01569
was transferred on April 13, 2018 from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00254-slc to the proceeding.

The case asserts breach of contract claims.

Sentry Life Insurance Company owns and operates a life insurance
company located at 200 E. Gaines St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0000. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: amo@girardgibbs.com
              dcg@girardgibbs.com
              eak@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
      Jason Toji Calabro, Esq.
      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      Suite 200, 460 Nichols Road
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: calabro@stuevesiegel.com
              siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              stueve@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Joseph Michael Feierabend, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
              jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
              mlytle@millerschirger.com

         - and -

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, TAMPA P.A.
      7th Floor
      One Tampa City Center
      201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Benjamine Reid, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
      Suite 4200, 100 SE 2nd St
      Miami, FL 33131-9101
      Telephone: (305) 530-0050
      Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
      E-mail: breid@carltonfields.com

         - and -

      Shaunda Patterson-Strachan, Esq.
      Waldemar Jacob Pflepsen Jr., Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
      Suite 400 West
      1025 Thomas Jefferson St NW
      Washington, DC 20007-5208
      Telephone: (202) 965-8100
      Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
      E-mail: spatterson-strachan@carltonfields.com
              wpflepsen@carltonfields.com


STATE FARM: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind People, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-02678
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.statefarm.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

State Farm is an Illinois corporation doing business in New York.
State Farm operates numerous offices and employs field employees
nationwide, including around New York City.  State Farm is an
insurance company that offers the commercial Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces "Leadford" Class Suit in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------
John Leadford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP, David G. Dehaemers
Jr., William R. Moler, Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Jeffrey A. Ball, Roy
N. Cook, Frank J. Loverro, Stanley De J. Osborne, John T.
Raymond, and Terrence D. Towner, Case No. 1:18-cv-00545-UNA (D.
Del., April 12, 2018), is brought on behalf of all public common
unitholders of Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP, to enjoin the
Agreement and Plan of Merger of TEP by Tallgrass Energy GP,
pursuant to which TEGP will acquire the approximately 47.6
million TEP common units held by the public.

According to the complaint, TEP filed a Registration Statement on
a Form S-4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
which recommends that Neustar stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. However, the Registration Statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for TEP; (ii) the valuation
analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, Evercore
Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"); (iii) the background process leading
up to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) the potential conflicts
of interest Evercore faced as a result of its historical dealings
with either party. It is imperative that the material information
that has been omitted from the Registration Statement is
disclosed to the Company's unitholders prior to the forthcoming
unitholder vote so that they can properly exercise their
corporate suffrage rights.

Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP is a publicly traded, growth-
oriented limited partnership that owns, operates, acquires, and
develops midstream energy assets in North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 984-3800


TINDER INC: Faces "Kim" Class Suit Over Age Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kim, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tinder, Inc., Match Group, LLC, Match
Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:18-cv-03093 (C.D.
Cal., April 12, 2018), arises out of Tinder's misleading and
illegal business practices, specifically the age discrimination
in its pricing plans in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants operate a location-based social search mobile
application. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      Christina M. Le, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12450 Beatrice St., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90066
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com
              christina@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (216) 220-6496
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0028
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


TD BANK: "Lawrence" Class Suit Transferred to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 5, 2017 captioned
Britney Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-12583 was
transferred from the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-00982-BHH to the proceeding.

The case arises from TD Bank's routine practice of charging
standard overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions with
Uber and Lyft.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank located in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: josephsauder@chimicles.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Susan M. Leming, Esq.
      BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
      360 Haddon Avenue
      Westmont, NJ 08108
      Telephone: (856) 854-8900
      E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TOTAL CARD: Faces "Hall" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Card, Inc.
The case is styled as Caleena D. Hall, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Total Card, Inc.,
Calvary SPV I, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01801-ELR-JCF (N.D. Ga., April 26, 2018).

Total Card, Inc. provides customized contact center support and
financial products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


TWO BOOTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Boots of 42nd
Street, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Two Boots of 42nd Street, LLC and Two Boots Times Square, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03782 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018).

Two Boots of 42nd Street, LLC is in the pizza restaurants
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


TRANSCORR LLC: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Transcorr, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-21485-UU (S.D. Fla.,
April 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Transcorr, LLC is in the business of providing shipping and
transport services throughout the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Smalley" Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Pacific
Railroad Company. The case is styled as Cynthia Smalley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-00180-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex., April 27, 2018).

The Union Pacific Railroad is a freight hauling railroad that
operates 8,500 locomotives over 32,100 route-miles in 23 states
west of Chicago and New Orleans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles William Nichols, Esq.
   Law Office of Charles W Nichols
   617 East Lacy
   Palestine, TX 75801
   Tel: (903) 729-5104
   Fax: (903) 729-0347
   Email: cnichols@charleswnicholslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Calapristi" Suit in Court of Federal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States.
The case is styled as Frank Calapristi and other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00612-SGB (C.O.F.C., April 30, 2018).

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Edward McKinley, Jr., Esq.
   1030 North Center Parkway
   Kennewick, WA 99336
   Tel: (509) 628-0809
   Fax: (509) 628-2307
   Email: doug@mckinleylaw.com


UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Chhoeun" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents David Marin, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Nak Kim Chhoeun, et al. v. David
Marin, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01898-CJC-GJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The Respondents-Appellants are DAVID MARIN, Field Office
Director, Los Angeles Field Office, United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; DAVID W. JENNINGS, Field Office Director,
San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting Director, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,
United States Department of Homeland Security; and JEFFERSON B.
SESSIONS III, Attorney General.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to prevent and challenge arbitrary and indefinite
detentions that violate statutory and regulatory law as well as
the Constitution.

Nak Kim Chhoeun and Mony Neth allege that beginning in October
2017, they have been arbitrarily and unlawfully detained by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").  The Petitioners'
and class members' families fled Cambodia in the 1970s to escape
the Khmer Rouge's campaign of mass murder and torture. They
arrived in the United States as small children after their
families secured refugee status. Petitioners and class members
have lived in the United States ever since. Almost all are lawful
permanent residents. Many have never set foot in Cambodia. In
every possible sense, the United States is their only home.
Petitioners and class members were ordered removed based on
criminal convictions -- in many cases, decades-old convictions
for offenses they committed as teenagers.

They were released from ICE custody because Cambodia would not
accept their repatriation.  They returned to their communities
under orders of supervision, reporting regularly to ICE and
complying with the conditions of their release.  Many have
U.S. citizen spouses, children, siblings, and relatives who rely
on them for support.

The appellate case is captioned as Nak Kim Chhoeun, et al. v.
David Marin, et al., Case No. 18-55389, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Petitioners-Appellees NAK KIM CHHOEUN, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly-situated individuals, and MONY NETH,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Lee P. Gelernt, Esq.
          ACLU-American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2616
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org

               - and -

          Laboni Amena Hoq, Esq.
          ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - LOS ANGELES
          1145 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-7500
          E-mail: lhoq@advancingjustice-la.org

Petitioners-Appellees NAK KIM CHHOEUN, MONY NETH, SALOEUN CHEA,
TOL PECH, THY CHANN, PECH KHA, DALA LOAV, BUNCHOEURN HY, KHEANG
LOR, SOKA DOS, NORIT CHIN, ANG THOEUN, SOKHAN KHIM, TITH TANG,
KHUN SUM, LOK LIM, NHOUETH NHIM, THELH KETH, SAMANANG YIN and THY
VANN are represented by:

          Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          Facsimile: (310) 595-9501
          E-mail: dcho@sidley.com

               - and -

          Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
          Naomi A. Igra, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
                  naomi.igra@sidley.com

               - and -

          Winifred V. Kao, Esq.
          Anoop Prasad, Esq.
          Jingni Zhao, Esq.
          ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896-1701
          Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
          E-mail: winifredk@advancingjustice-alc.org
                  anoopp@advancingjustice-alc.org
                  jennyz@advancingjustice-alc.org

The Respondents-Appellants are represented by:

          Troy David Liggett, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          450 5th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 532-4765
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: troy.liggett@usdoj.gov


UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Sued by Beaulieu Over Removal of Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEON BEAULIEU, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly
Situated v. RAYMOND DWEK, CHRISTOPHER PATUSKY, TOMMY THOMPSON,
KATHERINE KLEIN, RAY KURZWEIL, MARTINE ROTHBLATT, LOUIS SULLIVAN,
CHRISTOPHER CAUSEY, RICHARD GILTNER, and JUDY OLIAN, Case No.
2018-0215 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 26, 2018), is brought on behalf of
stockholders of United Therapeutics Corporation alleging that
certain provisions of the Company's Fifth Amended and Restated
Bylaws are in violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.

Mr. Beaulieu contends that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to act loyally and in good faith by permitting
and/or maintaining a governance scheme that effectively precludes
United shareholders from exercising their fundamental right to
remove directors.

The Defendants are directors and officers of United.

Non-Party United is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
executive offices located in Silver Spring, Maryland.  United is
a biotechnology company that develops and commercializes products
to address the unmet medical needs of patients with chronic and
life-threatening diseases worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Nina M. Varindani, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  nvarindani@faruqilaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Cummings" Suit in N.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo, N.A.
The case is styled as Sandra Cummings, individually, and on
behalf of all of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells
Fargo, N.A., doing business as: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Homeowner's Mortgage of America, Inc. doing business as:
Foundation Financial Group and John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00072-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., April 20,
2018).

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
central offices throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Macy Derald Hanson, Esq.
   The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson, PLLC
   102 First Choice Drive
   Madison, MS 39110
   Tel: (601) 853-9521
   Email: macy@macyhanson.com


WESTERN UNION: Faces "Frazier" Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Western Union
Company. The case is styled as Kazmiera Frazier and Mattie
Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. The Western Union Company, Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. and HikmetErsek and Various "Doe"
Defendants, Including Western Union Officers, Directors, and
Agents, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo., April
26, 2018).

The Western Union Company is an American financial services and
communications company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Ty Cheung Gee, Esq.
   Haddon Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
   150 East 10th Avenue
   Denver, CO 80203
   Tel: (303) 831-7364
   Fax: (303) 832-2628
   Email: tgee@hmflaw.com


XIOS INT'L: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xios International,
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Xios
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02512 (E.D.
N.Y., April 27, 2018).

Xios International, Inc. is engaged in the clothing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


                     Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc Has $220MM PCC Liability at Dec 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated has US$220 million liability at December 31,
2017, for asbestos-related matters under the reorganization plan
of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC), according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
("PCC").  PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the
Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the
"Plan") became effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2015, the Company's liability under the Plan was
estimated to be US$528 million.  At December 31, 2016, this
estimated liability was US$290 million, due to the Company's
contribution, in the second quarter of 2016, of its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. in the total
amount of US$238 million, as required by the Plan.  Corning
recognized a gain of US$56 million in the second quarter of 2016
in the selling, general and administrative expenses line of the
Company's Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income for the
difference between the fair value of the asbestos litigation
liability and carrying value of the investment.  This gain
includes the release of foreign translation losses in the amount
of US$25 million reclassified from accumulated other
comprehensive income.  The remaining US$290 million liability is
for the series of fixed payments required by the Plan.

"At December 31, 2017, the liability was reduced to US$220
million due to a cash payment of US$70 million in the second
quarter of 2017, as required by the Plan.  The total amount of
the payments due in years 2019 through 2022 is US$185 million and
is classified as a non-current liability at December 31, 2017.
The remaining US$35 million payment is due in the second quarter
of 2018 and is classified as a current liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $147MM Non-PCC Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded a reserve of US$147 million as of
December 31, 2017, for asbestos claims that are unrelated to
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"), according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging personal injuries from exposure to asbestos.  Corning
has been defending the claims in these cases, which are covered
in part by insurance, without material impact to Corning to date.
Corning previously established a US$150 million reserve for these
non-PCC asbestos claims.  The estimated reserve represents the
undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees.  The
amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data
becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any lesser or
greater liabilities at this time.

"Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies related to asbestos claims.
Corning has resolved these issues with all of its solvent
insurers and some of its insolvent insurers.  Corning continues
to seek resolution with the remaining insolvent insurers.
Management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation
with these remaining insolvent insurers."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4-Bil. Liability at Dec.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded US$1,369 million for asbestos-
related liability including defense and processing costs at
December 31, 2017, according to The Dow Chemical Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Dow Chemical states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades. At December 31, 2017, Union
Carbide's total asbestos-related liability, including defense and
processing costs, was $1,369 million ($1,490 million at December
31, 2016)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ddl2w3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 15,427 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 15,427 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at December 31, 2017, according to parent company The Dow
Chemical Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Dow Chemical states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that
Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and
Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a
former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

"Each year, Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") performs a
review for Union Carbide based upon historical asbestos claims,
resolution and historical defense spending.  Union Carbide
compares current asbestos claim, resolution and defense spending
activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each
balance sheet date to determine whether the asbestos-related
liability continues to be appropriate.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to Union Carbide,
Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific
damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.
In fact, there are no asbestos personal injury cases in which
only Union Carbide and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.
For these reasons and based upon Union Carbide's litigation and
settlement experience, Union Carbide does not consider the
damages alleged against Union Carbide and Amchem to be a
meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-
related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ddl2w3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Has $60-Mil. Unfavorable Development
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation's subsidiary, CNA Financial Corporation,
recognized a net unfavorable prior year development of $60
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Based upon CNA's annual A&EP reserve review,
net unfavorable prior year development of US$60 million, US$200
million and US$150 million was recognized before consideration of
cessions to the LPT for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,
and 2015.  The 2017 unfavorable development was driven by
modestly higher anticipated payouts on claims from known sources
of asbestos exposure.  The 2016 unfavorable development was
driven by an increase in anticipated future expenses associated
with determination of coverage, higher anticipated payouts
associated with a limited number of historical accounts having
significant asbestos exposures and higher than expected severity
on pollution claims.  The 2015 unfavorable development was
recorded to reflect a decrease in anticipated future reinsurance
recoveries related to asbestos claims and higher than expected
severity on pollution claims.  While the unfavorable development
was ceded to NICO under the LPT, CNA's reported earnings in the
periods were negatively affected due to the application of
retroactive reinsurance accounting."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 625 Open Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that it is aware of approximately 625 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.

The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company
and the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations
in connection with newly filed claims will cease with respect to
claims filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180
million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled
to the Trust which, based on presently available information, we
believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and
potential future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a
US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an
amendment to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves,
which are included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims
against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May
2016.  PPG will monitor the activity associated with its
remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its
estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then
available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether
any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time,
including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the
amounts required to resolve both currently known and future
unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available
to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the
litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of
any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi)
the lack of specific information in many cases concerning
exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the
claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and
(vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort
liability law.  All of these factors may have a material effect
upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.  As a potential
offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC
plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own account, the
right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its historical
insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/b22aze


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.3-Bil. Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had net asbestos reserves of
US$1,281 million at December 31, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company believes that the property and
casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and
other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos
claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.  The Company has received and continues to receive
a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's
policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a
policy).  Factors behind these claim filings include continued
intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and
the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.  The focus
on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of
traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy
protection in previous years.  In addition to contributing to the
overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the
volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the
reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and
increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company.  The
bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused
increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are
not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system.  Currently, in
many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who
can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are
receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who
have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having
their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket.
Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries,
along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally
primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims
and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the
Company.  The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim
adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the
unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available
to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or
through the insolvency of other participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage.  In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should
be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy.  It is
difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be
successful on both issues.  To the extent both issues are
resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are
not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the
policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only
by the applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of
asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders.
Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk
associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict
the ultimate cost of these claims.

"Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated.  There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company.  As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have
been launched directly against insurers, including the Company,
by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.  (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements).  The Company
had been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied.
On July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct
Action Settlements had been satisfied.  On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
US$579 million to the plaintiffs, comprised of the US$502 million
settlement amounts, plus pre- and post-judgment interest of US$77
million, which the Company paid in 2015.  It is possible that the
filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the
Company, could be made in the future.  It is difficult to predict
the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the
plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against
insurers based on novel legal theories of liability.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has
received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries.  In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves and the Company's evaluations have not resulted
in a reliable method to determine a meaningful average asbestos
defense or indemnity payment.

"The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2017, 2016 and
2015 resulted in US$225 million, US$225 million and US$224
million increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos
reserves.  In each year, the reserve increases were primarily
driven by increases in the Company's estimate of projected
settlement and defense costs related to a broad number of
policyholders in the Home Office category due to a higher than
previously anticipated level of litigation activity surrounding
mesothelioma claims.  This increase in the estimate of projected
settlement and defense costs resulted from payment trends that
continue to be higher than previously anticipated due to the
impact of the current litigation environment.  Over the past
decade, the property and casualty insurance industry, including
the Company, has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve
development with regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company
believes that over that period there has been a reduction in the
volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos
exposure as the overall asbestos environment has evolved from one
dominated by exposure to significant litigation risks,
particularly coverage disputes relating to policyholders in
bankruptcy who were asserting that their claims were not subject
to the aggregate limits contained in their policies, to an
environment primarily driven by a frequency of litigation related
to individuals with mesothelioma.  The Company's overall view of
the current underlying asbestos environment is essentially
unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of
uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development
on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in 2017, 2016 and 2015
were US$271 million, US$708 million and US$770 million,
respectively.  Net payments in 2016 included the US$458 million
payment related to the PPG settlement.  Net payments in 2015
included the US$502 million payment related to the Direct Action
Settlements.  Approximately 4%, 69% and 69% of total net paid
losses in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively, related to
policyholders with whom the Company had entered into settlement
agreements limiting the Company's liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 336 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 336 asbestos-related cases
pending as of December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in
which we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim
for damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims
for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim
for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an
equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to
allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in our favor.
We continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims.  Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely
that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims
against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.  However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties.  These uncertainties
include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims
may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies
currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from
case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease each
claimant alleged to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment
of legislation affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Rnz34J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $3.5MM for Expenses in 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded US$3.5 million expense for
asbestos-related litigation for the year ended December 31, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for
such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products.  We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades.  A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment.  The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in
the aggregate.  Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits,
so we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements
and judgments.

"We currently estimate our probable liability for known and
future asbestos-related litigation cases to be between US$28.5
million and US$46.5 million before consideration of probable
insurance recoveries with all amounts in that range equally
likely.  We have accrued US$8.5 million in Accrued expenses and
US$20.0 million in Other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance
at December 31, 2017.  For the years ended December 31, 2017,
2016 and 2015, we recorded expense of US$3.5 million, US$6.3
million and US$0.9 million, respectively, net of probable
insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related
litigation and is recorded in Losses and other expenses, net in
the Consolidated Statements of Operations."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 17,737 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 17,737 unresolved claims related to
asbestos matters as of December 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company also disclosed that in the year ended December 31,
2017, there were 4,543 claims filed and 7,373 claims resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TMTZ8O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.3MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had had accrued asbestos liability of
US$50,311,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$310,326,000
as of December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable
and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 12
months, overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers,
which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting
future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the
average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among
layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect
on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their
interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well
as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation
could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be
higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could
materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TMTZ8O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 537 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is named a defendant in approximately 537
asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 1,153 claims as
of December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal
injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs
and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a
large volume of defendant entities as a result of the various
defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other
involvement with asbestos, asbestos-containing products or
equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be
exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs typically assert exposure
to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products
that the Company's subsidiary, MRC Global (US) Inc., purportedly
distributed.  As of December 31, 2017, we are a named defendant
in approximately 537 lawsuits involving approximately 1,153
claims.  No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against
us to date, with the majority being settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.  Applicable third-party insurance has
substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue
to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated
future claims.  Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to
the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/twN9lx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$38MM for DuPont Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$38 million for
asbestos-related lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) at December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Chemours, by virtue of its status as a
subsidiary of DuPont prior to the Separation, is subject to or
required under the Separation-related agreements executed prior
to the Separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending
legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of Chemours'
business including product liability, intellectual property,
commercial, environmental, and antitrust lawsuits.

"In the Separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.  At December 31, 2017 and 2016, there were
approximately 1,600 and 1,900 lawsuits pending, respectively,
against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.  These cases are pending in state and federal court in
numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for
trial.  A small number of cases are pending outside the U.S. Most
of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites
between 1950 and the 1990s.  A small number of cases involve
similar allegations by DuPont employees or household members of
contractors or DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits
allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont
products.

"At December 31, 2017 and 2016, Chemours had an accrual of US$38
million and US$41 million related to this matter, respectively.
Chemours reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statute of Repose Does Not Bar PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in reversing the judgment of
the Court of Special Appeals in the appealed case June Diane
Duffy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James F. Piper
v. CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, INC., f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corp. No. 41, September Term, 2017. (Md.), holds that
the statute of repose, presently codified as Section 5-108 of the
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code does
not bar the causes of action brought by James F. Piper, now
deceased.

Mr. Piper was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about December
26, 2013. On March 26, 2014, he filed suit against the various
defendants alleging strict liability, breach of warranty,
negligence, and "aiding and abetting and conspiracy," which
stemmed from his work as a plumber and steamfitter from 1948 to
1990. After Mr. Piper's death, June Diane Duffy pursues, on
behalf of the Estate, Mr. Piper's causes of action for personal
injury and wrongful death resulting from his undisputed and
unknowing exposure to asbestos that last occurred days before the
statute of repose was first enacted in 1970 as Article 57,
Section 20 in the Maryland Code (1957, 1968 Repl. Vol., 1970 Cum.
Supp.).

Respondent, CBS Corporation, is a Delaware corporation. At the
time of Mr. Piper's injuries, CBS Corp. was known as Westinghouse
Electric Corporation. In March 1970, Westinghouse contracted with
Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") to manufacture, supply,
and deliver the components needed to build a Steam Turbine
Generator ("Unit 1") at Pepco's Morgantown Generating Station.
Westinghouse built the major components of the turbine offsite
and constructed the turbine onsite at Morgantown. Included in the
turbine specifications were insulating materials that contained
asbestos. Walter E. Campbell Company ("WECCO") entered into a
subcontract with Westinghouse to supply and install the
insulating materials that Westinghouse specified for construction
of the turbine generator. Westinghouse provided WECCO with the
"Process Specification" for the "Application of Asbestos Compound
by Spraying." These detailed instructions set forth the placement
and method for applying insulation to the inside surfaces of the
steam turbine enclosures.

Mr. Piper worked as a steamfitter at Morgantown. During the
construction of the Unit 1 turbine, Mr. Piper worked on the steam
piping that connected the Unit 1 turbine to another turbine. In
his complaint, Mr. Piper alleged that at that time he was
unknowingly exposed to asbestos as a result of WECCO's
installation of the insulating material that contained asbestos.
According to WECCO's payroll records, the insulation was
installed between May 3, 1970 and June 28, 1970, which made June
28, 1970 the last possible day of Mr. Piper's undisputed exposure
to the asbestos containing insulation.

At the close of discovery on January 9, 2015, Westinghouse filed
a motion for summary judgment, which Mr. Piper opposed.
Westinghouse asserts that pursuant to subsection (a) of CJP
Section 5-108, the Estate's claims are barred and its causes of
action do not comport with any of the exceptions delineated in
the statute. Westinghouse further argues that in light of the
defined exceptions under subsection Section 5-108(d)(2), the "no
cause of action" language of subsection (a) should be interpreted
as a blanket prohibition against all other suits that do not
satisfy the exceptions.

Westinghouse also argued that construing CJP Section 5-108 as an
applicable bar to Mr. Piper's claims would not infringe on any
rights he possessed in 1970. Westinghouse contended that Mr.
Piper could not have successfully brought a claim against the
corporation at the time of his exposure because the exposure, at
that time, had not manifested into a cognizable injury.

In contrast, Mr. Piper maintained that his injury arose at the
time of his asbestos exposure around June 28, 1970. Mr. Piper's
counsel contended that if the exposure predated the enactment of
the statutory cap under Section 11-108 of the Courts and Judicial
Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, then the statute could
not retroactively apply to an injury or cause of action that
"arose" prior to the statute's enactment. According to Mr. Piper,
the statute of repose could not apply retroactively when his
injury and, thus, his causes of action "arose" prior to enactment
of the statute.

At the close of the hearing, the Circuit Court granted
Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and entered an Order
on May 14, 2015. Mr. Piper noted a timely appeal to the Court of
Special Appeals. On May 31, 2017, in a reported opinion, the
Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling. The
Court of Special Appeals concluded that Mr. Piper's cause of
action did not "arise" or "accrue" until 2013 by characterizing
Mr. Piper's injury as the mesothelioma diagnosis. The
intermediate appellate court reasoned that the diagnosis of
mesothelioma was outside of the twenty-year limitations period
set forth in the statute of repose beginning with the operation
of the turbine. That court, therefore, concluded that the plain
language of CJP Section 5-108 barred Mr. Piper's claims.

The Court explains that the General Assembly enacted the statute
of repose to provide a temporal limitation to the discovery
rule's applicability to causes of action for injuries "arising"
from improvements to real property. Mr. Piper's causes of action
stem from his exposure to asbestos, which led to the development
of mesothelioma, a latent disease. Due to the latent effects of
asbestos exposure and, thus, the causes of action at issue, the
penultimate question in this case is when do injuries from
asbestos exposure "arise" for purposes of the statute of repose.

The General Assembly enacted Art. 57, Section 20 in 1970 to
provide repose to certain classes of defendants against causes of
action brought by plaintiffs who had sustained injuries involving
improvements to real property. Art. 57, Section 20 provided: "No
action to recover damages for injury to property real or
personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of
the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real
property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for
damages incurred as a result of said injury or death, will be
brought more than twenty years after the said improvement was
substantially completed. This limitation will not apply to any
action brought against the person who, at the time the injury was
sustained, was in actual possession and control as owner, tenant,
or otherwise of the said improvement. For purposes of this
section, substantially completed will mean when the entire
improvement is first available for its intended use."

Section 2 of Ch. 666 plainly expressed that the statute did not
apply retroactively to injuries when it provided that the act
"will not apply to any cause of action arising on or before June
30, 1970." CJP Section 11-108, the statutory cap on noneconomic
damages, went into effect on July 1, 1986.

The Court believes that when considering the purpose of statutes
of repose, and Sections 2 and 3 of Art. 57 Section 20, it is
clear that the General Assembly did not intend to retroactively
insulate from liability defendants for injuries that they had
already caused prior to the enactment of the statute. A statute
of repose operates to protect substantive rights of the defendant
by limiting a defendant's liability after a prescribed date.

Because of the insidious nature of asbestos-related diseases and
the purpose of the statute of repose, the Court bolsters its
conclusion to apply the "exposure approach," which requires a
trial court to look at the plaintiff's last day of exposure to
the asbestos-containing product. Starting from the premise that
"if there is no injury, there is no cause of action," the Court
recognizes that whether the injury sued upon is cancer or
asbestosis, the plaintiff must, at the outset, establish that he
or she has that disease. Accordingly, the issue for the trial
court, then, is to resolve "when that injury came into existence"
for the purpose of determining whether the injury occurred before
or after the effective date of CJP Section 11-108. The Court
maintains that when determining plaintiff's injury relating to
asbestos exposure arose prior to the effective date of the
statute of repose, the date of the plaintiff's last exposure to
asbestos-containing products applies.

The Court disagrees with Westinghouse' conclusion that the
statute of repose applies to bar Mr. Piper's causes of action
because his causes of action "accrued" in 2013, well after the
effective date of the statute. The Court determines that before
the statute went into effect, Westinghouse had already executed
the contract for the installation of the asbestos-containing
insulation, and Mr. Piper indisputably had already inhaled the
asbestos fibers contained in the insulation materials installed
by WECCO. The Court concludes that the last possible day of Mr.
Piper's exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred no
later than June 28, 1970, and it was at that point when his
injury and causes of action arose. By the time of the effective
date of the statute of repose ("This Act will take effect July 1,
1970."), the Court believes that Mr. Piper had already suffered
an injury. Because the statute went into effect after Mr. Piper's
injury arose, the Court concludes that the statute could not
conceivably bar his causes of action for strict liability,
negligence, breach of contract, and "aiding and abetting and
conspiracy."

It is the date of Mr. Piper's injury -- not the date of discovery
of his cause of action -- that guides the Court's analysis
because "if there is no injury, there is no cause of action." The
Court explains that Mr. Piper's diagnosis of mesothelioma in 2013
merely put him on notice that he had suffered an injury on a
prior date and, therefore, may have causes of action that came
into being as a result of his injury. It follows that if Mr.
Piper had not been injured on or before June 28, 1970, then he
would not have causes of action that arose in 1970, and,
therefore, would have no viable causes of action in 2013. To be
sure, if Mr. Piper had not been injured when alleged, there would
have been no latent disease to discover in 2013. The Court,
therefore, holds that the statute of repose does not apply to bar
Mr. Piper's causes of action.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 28, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wg2evs from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher, Honeywell Wins Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case is Mary Farmer, individually as the Surviving Spouse
of Bobby Lee Farmer (Deceased) and in her capacity as the
Executrix of the Estate of Bobby Lee Farmer (Deceased),
Plaintiff, v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:16-CV-054 (LJA), (M.D. Ga.), Judge Leslie
J. Abrams of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Fisher Controls Inc. and Honeywell International Inc. because
Plaintiff failed to establish that Fisher Controls Inc.'s and v
Honeywell International Inc.'s gaskets and valves were the
proximate cause of Bobby Farmer's injury.

Bobby Farmer died on June 18, 2016. Plaintiff Mary Farmer, Mr.
Farmer's wife, alleges that Mr. Farmer contracted pleural
mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure while working at
the Albany, Georgia Coats & Clark plant. Mr. Farmer was not
deposed prior to his death. Mr. Farmer, however, told his
treating physicians that he was employed as a maintenance worker
at a textile plant and that "he did a lot of boiler work in the
past. . . . in the 50s, 60s and 70s," and "he cut asbestos
[insulation] off pipes in the past as part of his job."

In an effort to identify the offending products, Plaintiff relies
on Robert F. Pennington, a former co-worker of Mr. Farmer's at
Georgia Coats. Pennington's deposition was taken on July 12,
2016. No other fact witness testified on behalf of Plaintiff with
respect to the identification of products alleged to have been
the source of Mr. Farmer's asbestos exposure. Pennington worked
with Mr. Farmer from 1969 to 1996. Pennington testified that both
he and Mr. Farmer were exposed to asbestos from their work
removing and replacing asbestos-containing gaskets and packing
associated with the pumps and valves in operation at Georgia
Coats.

On May 22, 2017, Defendants Fisher Controls Inc., Honeywell
International Inc., and McWane Inc. each filed Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Fisher Controls Inc. argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff has failed to
establish causation. Specifically, Fisher argues that "the record
is devoid of any evidence that Mr. Farmer was ever exposed to
asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by Fisher. In
the absence of exposure there can be no causation, and
Plaintiff's claims fail in their entirety."

In response, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Farmer was exposed to
asbestos while removing and replacing gaskets and packing on the
Fisher valves. Pennington testified that Fisher was one of
several manufacturers of valves installed at Georgia Coats and
testified that Farmer was exposed to asbestos through assisting
with work on the Fisher valves. Furthermore, Pennington testified
that Georgia Coats used the same type of replacement gaskets and
packing for all of the pumps and valves installed at the plant.
Crucially, Pennington testified that the replacement gaskets and
packing were manufactured by a third-party -- not Fisher. As
Fisher did not supply the replacements, to survive Fisher's
Motion, Plaintiff must show that Mr. Farmer was exposed to
asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, or packing originally
supplied by Fisher, alternatively, Plaintiff must show that
Fisher valves required asbestos-containing components to function
properly.

As to the insulation, Pennington admitted that he could not
identify the manufacturer of the material used for insulation on
the Fisher valves. As to the gaskets, Pennington agreed he could
not say that Mr. Farmer was the first person to replace the
gaskets on any Fisher valves. Moreover, Pennington admitted that
he never observed Mr. Farmer disassemble a Fisher valve and that
all of the gasket work Mr. Farmer performed took place at the
flanges. Furthermore, Fisher valves -- as sold -- never came
equipped with flange gaskets.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed
to point to evidence showing that Mr. Farmer was exposed to
asbestos-containing gaskets manufactured or supplied by Fisher.

As to the packing, for the Fisher valves that were identified by
Georgia Coats, Fisher located and produced serial cards
maintained by Fisher that documented the as-built construction
specifications for each piece of equipment. In all instances
where these serial cards did set forth a construction
specification for packing, however, those specifications called
for asbestos-free Teflon packing. According to Fisher's Corporate
Representative, this means that the Fisher valves known to be
used at Georgia Coats would have contained non-asbestos Teflon
packing at the time they were manufactured and sold to the
customer.

As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established
that Fisher valves were the proximate cause of Mr. Farmer's
injury because Plaintiff has failed to point to evidence Mr.
Farmer was exposed to any Fisher valve that required asbestos-
containing components to function properly. Nor has Plaintiff
shown that Mr. Farmer was exposed to an asbestos-containing
product manufactured or supplied by Fisher. Accordingly, the
Court maintains that Plaintiff's negligence claims against Fisher
fail.

Honeywell International Inc. asserts that it is entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff has
failed to establish causation. Specifically, Honeywell argues
that "Plaintiff has produced no evidence Honeywell manufactured,
supplied, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce an
asbestos-containing substance that Mr. Farmer was exposed toIn
response, Plaintiff argues that she has presented "ample evidence
that Mr. Famer was regularly exposed to asbestos through his work
with asbestos-containing Honeywell valves and that such exposure
contributed to the development of Mr. Farmer's mesothelioma."

Pennington testified that the replacement gaskets and packing
were manufactured by a third-party -- not Honeywell. As Honeywell
did not supply the replacements, to survive Honeywell's Motion,
Plaintiff must show that Mr. Farmer was exposed to asbestos-
containing insulation, gaskets, or packing originally supplied by
Honeywell. Alternatively, Plaintiff must show that the Honeywell
valves to which Mr. Farmer was exposed required asbestos-
containing components to function properly. Pennington also said
that he was unaware of when the Honeywell valves were purchased
or installed at Georgia Coats, and there is no evidence in the
record that Mr. Farmer removed or replaced the original gaskets
or packing on any Honeywell valve. Moreover, Honeywell did not
manufacture, supply, design, recommend, or specify exterior
insulation of any type for use on the industrial control valves
manufactured by its Industrial Division. As such, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that Mr. Farmer was exposed to an asbestos-
containing gasket, packing, or insulation originally manufactured
or supplied by Honeywell. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not
established that Honeywell valves were the proximate cause of Mr.
Farmer's injury, and her negligence claims against Honeywell
fail. Because Honeywell is entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiff's negligence claims, it is also entitled to judgment on
Plaintiff's derivative claims.

Defendant McWane Inc. argues it is "entitled to summary judgment
because there is no evidence that Mr. Farmer was exposed to
asbestos from a Chicago Pump manufactured during the time period
that McWane has liabilities for Chicago Pumps."

Plaintiff brings her claims against McWane as the successor-in-
interest to Clow Corporation, which manufactured pumps under the
trade name "Chicago Pump" from April 1, 1980 to October 31, 1985.
Plaintiff asserts that she "has presented ample evidence that Mr.
Farmer was regularly exposed to asbestos through his work with
asbestos associated with Chicago Pumps for which McWane is
responsible." Plaintiff asserts that because McWane assumed
liability for warranty service claims on some FMC products
manufactured prior to the asset purchase in 1980, as a successor,
McWane had a duty to warn about the danger of products
manufactured by its predecessor.

In 1985, McWane purchased the stock of Clow and merged Clow into
McWane through a series of transactions between 1985 and 1987. As
a result, McWane is the successor-in-interest to Clow. On April
1, 1980, prior to McWane's purchase of Clow, Clow entered into an
asset purchase agreement with FMC Corporation (FMC), whereby Clow
purchased from FMC "assets of the pump and comminution product
lines currently manufactured by FMC at its Itasca, Illinois plant
and marketed under the trade name 'Chicago Pump.'" Through the
agreement, Clow assumed liability for warranty service claims not
to exceed $5,000.00 per incident under the terms of express
warranties issued by FMC on products it sold. Clow assumed no
other liabilities for products sold by FMC. On October 31, 1985,
Clow sold the Chicago Pump Company assets to Yeomans Chicago
Corporation and ceased manufacturing any products under the trade
name Chicago Pump as of that date.

The basis for McWane's Motion is that Plaintiff has failed to
point to evidence that Mr. Farmer was exposed to asbestos from a
Chicago Pump manufactured between 1980 and 1985.

While the Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to point to
evidence in the record that Mr. Farmer was exposed to a Chicago
Pump manufactured between 1980 and 1985, McWane is potentially
liable as a successor under a post-sale failure to warn theory
pursuant to Section 13 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
Because McWane agreed to provide warranty services under FMC
warranties, the Court says that McWane could be liable under
Section 13 if: (1) Mr. Farmer was exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied or manufactured by Chicago Pump or a Chicago
Pump that required an asbestos-containing component to function;
(2) a reasonable person in the position of McWane would have
provided a warning; and (3) McWane's failure to warn was the
proximate cause of Mr. Farmer's injury.

Because McWane moved for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiff failed to show that Mr. Farmer was exposed to a Chicago
Pump manufactured between 1980 and 1985, summary judgment is
inappropriate due to McWane's potential successor liability under
Section 13 for Chicago Pump products present at Georgia Coats and
manufactured prior to the asset purchase in 1980.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 28, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y7uzohv4 from Leagle.com.

Mary Farmer, individually and as the surviving spouse of Bobby
Lee Farmer (deceased), and in her capacity as the Executrix of
the Estate of Bobby Lee Farmer (deceased), Plaintiff, represented
by Ethan Allen Horn, Kevin J. Lamarca -- info@lanierlawfirm.com -
- The Lanier Law Firm PC, Patrick S. Flynn & Robert C. Buck.

GARDNER DENVER INC, Defendant, represented by Allen E. Lockerman,
IV -- alockerman@hptylaw.com

GOULDS PUMPS INC, Defendant, represented by Holly A. Hempel --
holly.hempel@nelsonmullins.com -- and LEE ANN ANAND --
leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com

MCWANE INC, Defendant, represented by JOHN A. LITTLE, Jr. --
jlittle@maynardcooper.com -- JOHN A. SMYTH, III --
jsmyth@maynardcooper.com -- KACEY L. WEDDLE --
kweddle@maynardcooper.com -- and ALFREDA LYNETTE SHEPPARD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms WECCO Claims as Time Barred
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms
the judgment of the district court in the appealed case General
Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, The Walter E. Campbell
Company, Inc. Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
United States Fire Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire & Marine
Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees, and National Indemnity
Company; Federal Insurance Company; Crum & Forster Corporation;
Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company; The
Continental Insurance Company, Defendants, The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, The
Travelers Indemnity Company; Property & Casualty Insurance
Guaranty Corporation, Defendant and Third Party Defendant. No.
17-1585, (4th Cir.).

In November 2012, one of WECCO's insurers, General Insurance
Company of America, brought a declaratory judgment action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against WECCO
and several of WECCO's other insurers, including St. Paul and
U.S. Fire. General Insurance asserted that (1) all the claims it
had settled on behalf of WECCO fell under its policies'
completed-operations hazards; (2) the hazards' aggregate limits
had been exhausted; and (3) WECCO's other insurers were not
paying their pro rata share of the liabilities arising from the
asbestos claims against WECCO. Accordingly, General Insurance
sought, inter alia, a judicial declaration stating that it had
fulfilled all of its obligations to WECCO and thus was no longer
liable to defend or indemnify WECCO for any pending or future
bodily injury claims. The insurer-defendants, including St. Paul
and U.S. Fire, filed answers to General Insurance's complaint;
many also asserted counterclaims and cross-claims with the intent
of absolving themselves of any further obligation to indemnify
WECCO for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

This insurance coverage dispute involves the applicability of two
insurers' policies to past, pending, and future asbestos-related
bodily injury claims against the Walter E. Campbell Company
("WECCO"), the insured. WECCO appeals several rulings by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland against WECCO and in
favor of United States Fire Insurance Company and St. Paul Fire &
Marine Insurance Company.

Since the mid-1980s, numerous individuals have sued WECCO
alleging asbestos-related bodily injury stemming from WECCO's
operations. From at least 1960 and through 1985, WECCO purchased
and maintained comprehensive general liability insurance policies
from several insurers, including St. Paul and U.S. Fire. Pursuant
to those policies, St. Paul, U.S. Fire, and other insurers
defended and indemnified WECCO against hundreds of asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, paying claimants more than $60
million on WECCO's behalf over several decades. However, though
many claims against WECCO remain pending, the Insurers now
contend that, based on the aggregate liability limits set forth
in their policies with WECCO, they no longer are contractually
obligated to defend and indemnify WECCO against such claims.

The policies WECCO entered into with the Insurers are, for
purposes of this appeal, nearly identical with respect to the
type of coverage provided. Generally speaking, the policies
differentiate between (1) claims involving bodily injuries that
fall within the policies' "completed operations hazard" and
"products hazard" and (2) claims involving bodily injuries that
fall outside those hazards -- often referred to as "operations"
claims. With respect to these two hazards, the policy provides
that "the total liability of the Company for all damages because
of (1) all bodily injury included within the completed operations
hazard and (2) all bodily injury included within the products
hazard will not exceed" the aggregate limit set forth in the
policy.

WECCO and the Insurers disagree as to how to properly classify
past, pending, and future bodily injury claims against WECCO.
Specifically, WECCO contends that the Insurers have
mischaracterized settled operations claims as settled completed-
operations claims, resulting in a premature exhaustion of the
policies' aggregate limits for completed-operations claims.
Additionally, WECCO and the Insurers disagree over the manner in
which coverage liability should be allocated among WECCO and the
multiple insurance policies triggered by an asbestos-related
bodily injury.

In 2003, the Insurers notified WECCO that the aggregate limits
contained in the primary policies issued to WECCO had exhausted
and that, as a result, the Insurers were no longer obligated to
defend or indemnify WECCO under these policies. However, the
Insurers continued to defend and indemnify WECCO under their
umbrella/excess policies until U.S. Fire stopped in January 2009
-- after notifying WECCO that it had fully exhausted the
aggregate limits contained in its umbrella/excess policies--and
St. Paul stopped in June 2013 -- after doing the same. Despite
receiving these notices, WECCO never challenged the Insurers'
assertion that their policies' aggregate limits were exhausted
until the instant action.

The current dispute concerns several primary and umbrella/excess
comprehensive general liability coverage policies issued by the
Insurers to WECCO between May 1, 1975, and April 1, 1983. During
the proceedings, WECCO and the Insurers sought several judicial
declarations related to the proper interpretation of the
policies. WECCO also brought a breach-of-contract action against
the Insurers, alleging that they improperly allocated settled
operations claims as settled completed operations claims, and
subjected those claims improperly to the aggregate limit of
liability in their policies, which caused the policies' aggregate
limits of liability to exhaust prematurely. Extensive discovery
ensued.

The district court entered a final judgment order on April 5,
2017. WECCO timely appealed, contending that the district court
erred when it (A) interpreted the completed-operations hazard to
apply to bodily injury stemming from an individual's exposure to
asbestos during a WECCO operation that was completed at the time
the insurance policy took effect, regardless of whether such
operation was ongoing when the individual was first exposed; (B)
placed the burden on WECCO to prove that an asbestos-related
bodily injury claim is not subject to a policy's aggregate limit;
(C) determined that St. Paul properly classified certain claims
as "completed operations" claims; (D) declared that the aggregate
limits of St. Paul's policies had been exhausted; and (E)
concluded, in the alternative, that most of WECCO's breach-of-
contract claims were time-barred. We affirm the district court's
judgment in its entirety, addressing each of WECCO's contentions
in turn.

WECCO argues that the district court erred in declaring that
bodily injury that occurs during an insurer's policy period but
arises out of a WECCO operation that concluded prior to the start
of that policy period falls within the policy's completed-
operations hazard and thus is subject to the policy's completed-
operations hazard's aggregate limit.

In WECCO's view, if a claimant was initially injured by asbestos
exposure arising out of a WECCO operation, the claim is properly
classified as an operations claim, regardless of whether the
operation was ongoing or completed at the time of the policy's
inception. Put differently, WECCO argues that the completed-
operations hazard applies only in situations in which the
starting point of a claimant's bodily injury occurred after WECCO
operations completed.

Boiled down to its core, WECCO's argument amounts to an attempt
to re-litigate the Court's holding in Wallace & Gale. In In re
Wallace & Gale, 385 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2004), the Court held
that, under Maryland law, the completed-operations hazard found
in policies similar to the ones at issue here encompass any
bodily injury claim in which the claimant was injured by asbestos
exposure attributable to an operation that the insured completed
prior to the start of the policy period.

Thus, as to the relevant issue in this case -- whether bodily
injury claims arising from asbestos exposure during WECCO
operations that completed prior to the issuance of a policy are
subject to the policy's aggregate limit for completed-operations
claims -- the Court's opinion in Wallace & Gale resolved any
ambiguity in the district court's opinion. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that the district court correctly declared that any
bodily injury claim based on an injury that occurred during a
WECCO operation that completed prior to the start of a policy
falls within the completed-operations hazard of that policy.

Next, WECCO contends that the district court erred in declaring
that WECCO, not the Insurers, bears the burden of proving that a
bodily injury claim falls outside of the products and completed-
operations hazards to which the aggregate limits of the Insurers'
policies apply.

The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking, among
other things, that the district court make the following
declaration: "To avoid the application of the aggregate limit of
any particular policy, WECCO bears the burden of proving that the
bodily injury that occurred during that policy's policy period
arose from asbestos exposure during a WECCO operation that was
ongoing during such policy period. In opposing the Insurers'
motion, WECCO did not challenge the Insurers' proposed
declaration. To the contrary, as the district court noted, WECCO
instead sought to "shift the focus to an issue not raised in the
Insurers' motion," that is, whether the Insurers bear the burden
of proving that the aggregate limits of the policies in question
have actually been "exhausted."

But, as the district court correctly recognized, the burden to
prove the applicability of an aggregate limit is separate and
distinct from the burden to prove the exhaustion of such limit.
Because WECCO failed to challenge the propriety of this
declaration in the proceedings, it may not attempt to do so now.
As the Court has repeatedly held, issues raised for the first
time on appeal generally will not be considered.

WECCO also takes issue with the district court's conclusion that
St. Paul properly classified several payments made to claimants
on behalf of WECCO as payments for completed-operations claims,
subject to its policies' aggregate limits. As mentioned before,
the district court correctly held that (1) bodily injury arising
from WECCO operations that concluded prior to the start of a
policy falls within the completed-operations hazard of the policy
and (2) WECCO bears the burden of proving that a bodily injury
arose from asbestos exposure during a WECCO operation that was
ongoing during the policy's policy period.

After considering the evidence in the record, the district court
concluded that several asbestos-related bodily injury claims paid
by St. Paul on behalf of WECCO were completed-operations claims
subject to aggregate limits. In reaching this conclusion, the
court noted that there was "no real dispute that WECCO had ceased
the sale and installation of all asbestos products by no later
than 1972." And it relied on WECCO's own statements admitting
that it failed to identify any evidence indicating it handled,
repaired, removed, or disturbed asbestos-containing materials
while St. Paul's policies were in place. Id. Thus, the district
court concluded that any bodily injury triggering coverage under
a St. Paul policy occurred wholly after WECCO completed its
asbestos-related operations and therefore falls within the
completed-operations hazard.

On appeal, WECCO maintains that the actual date it ceased
asbestos-related operations is irrelevant in determining whether
a claim asserted against WECCO is a completed-operations claim.
In particular, WECCO points out that a claimant may allege that
he or she first suffered an asbestos-related bodily injury during
a WECCO operation that took place after 1972, and if the insurer
decides to settle, any payout to that claimant by the insurer
should be classified as a payout for an operations claim, not a
completed-operations claim. WECCO, however, has failed to put
forward any competent evidence suggesting that St. Paul settled
any claims for individuals alleging asbestos exposure during
post-1972 WECCO operations.

Accordingly, the Court need not -- and thus do not -- decide
whether an allegation of asbestos exposure during post-1972 WECCO
operations gives rise to a completed-operations or operations
claim under the terms of the policies. Therefore, the Court agree
with the district court that the undisputed evidence in the
record establishes that St. Paul properly classified the claims
at issue as completed-operations claims.

WECCO also asserts that the district court erred in declaring
that St. Paul had exhausted the aggregate limits for completed-
operations claims within the policies it issued to WECCO. St.
Paul claimed that it paid $32 million on WECCO's behalf to
resolve asbestos-related bodily injury claims, thereby exhausting
the sum total of its policies' aggregate limits. In support of
its contention, St. Paul produced two "loss runs" -- electronic
insurance reports detailing the claims it paid on behalf of
WECCO. It attached these loss runs to an affidavit of Irene Muse,
a Regional Director at The Travelers Indemnity Company. Over a
hearsay objection by WECCO, the district court admitted the loss
runs under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule set
forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). Then, after considering
the loss runs and other evidence, the district court declared
that St. Paul had exhausted the aggregate limits of its policies.

On appeal, WECCO challenges the admissibility of St. Paul's loss
run evidence under Rule 803(6). According to WECCO, the district
court abused its discretion in admitting the loss runs because
(1) neither the loss runs nor the data contained therein amount
to records "made at or near the time the claims were paid by--or
from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge;" (2)
Muse was not qualified to testify about those loss runs; and (3)
the loss runs were generated solely for purposes of this
litigation.

But the Court explains that Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rule of
Evidence does not "require that the records be created by the
business having custody of them" and a "qualified witness need
not have personally participated in the creation of the document,
nor know who actually recorded the information." The Court
stresses that all that is required of the qualified witness is
that he or she be familiar with the record-keeping procedures of
the organization and that the qualified witness must be able to
testify that the record was "kept in the course of a regularly
conducted business activity and also that it was a regular
practice of that business activity to make the record."

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in deeming Muse a qualified witness under
803(6) since the district court found that "since January 2008,
Muse oversaw and managed the handling of claims against WECCO and
the supervision of the individual who has been the primary claims
handler on the WECCO account since the late 1990s." And Muse also
testified that she was familiar with the process and procedures
by which the payment records for St. Paul's loss runs were
created and maintained.

The Court also finds no merit to WECCO's argument that St. Paul's
loss runs are inadmissible because they were created in the
course of litigation and thus are not "verifiably
contemporaneous" records of payments St. Paul made on WECCO's
behalf. As mentioned before, Muse averred that she supervised the
primary claims handler on the WECCO account. Muse further averred
that the information reflected in the loss runs were recorded by
a person with knowledge of the information at or near the time of
the payments reflected therein, and that the information was
maintained during the regular and ordinary course of business.
That the loss runs were printed out from Travelers' database for
purposes of this litigation does not impact the admissibility of
the loss runs because "evidence that has been compiled from a
computer database is also admissible as a business record,
provided it meets the criteria of Rule 803(6)." Accordingly, the
Court concludes that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting St. Paul's loss runs and concluding that
it had exhausted the aggregate limits of its policies.

The parties agree that, under Maryland law, a three-year statute
of limitations applies to WECCO's breach-of-contract claims. To
determine whether WECCO timely filed its breach-of-contract
claims, the district court first looked to the specific breach
alleged in WECCO's complaint -- that "U.S. Fire and St. Paul
improperly allocated settled operations claims as settled
completed operations claims, and subjected those claims
improperly to the aggregate limit of liability in their
policies," resulting in the premature exhaustion of the aggregate
limits. The district court then concluded that the statute of
limitations began to run with respect to WECCO's claims when the
Insurers informed WECCO that the aggregate limits of their
polices had been exhausted.

Specifically, with respect to the primary policies issued by the
Insurers to WECCO, the district court found that the statute of
limitations began to run on WECCO's breach-of-contract claims, at
the latest, in 2003, when the Insurers first notified WECCO that
the aggregate limits had been reached on those policies. And with
respect to U.S. Fire's umbrella polices, the district court found
that the statute of limitations began to run, at the latest, in
January 2009, when U.S. Fire notified WECCO that its umbrella
policies' limits were exhausted. Given that WECCO did not assert
breach-of-contract claims against the Insurers until January 14,
2013 -- more than three years after the Insurers' notices -- the
district court concluded that almost all of WECCO's breach-of-
contract claims were time-barred.

On appeal, WECCO contends that the Insurers' notices amounted to
nothing more than an anticipatory breach -- giving WECCO the
option to sue at that time. According to WECCO, the Insurers did
not actually breach their contracts with WECCO until they first
refused to defend and indemnify WECCO against asbestos-related
bodily injury claims. Each claim the Insurers have declined to
pay since that time constitutes a new breach, WECCO maintains,
subject to a new statute-of-limitations period. Thus, as WECCO
sees it, the Insurers have breached their contracts with WECCO as
recently as February 2015, when they refused to make
contractually obligated payments on behalf of WECCO.

As the district court recognized, WECCO did not allege that the
Insurers breached their contracts with WECCO by refusing to
defend or indemnify WECCO against any particular claims alleging
asbestos-related bodily injury. To the contrary, WECCO alleged
that the Insurers "breached their obligations under their
policies" by their "improper allocation of settled operations
claims as settled completed operations claims." In determining at
which point a cause of action begins to accrue, Maryland courts
abide by "the discovery rule, which now applies generally in all
civil actions, and which provides that a cause of action accrues
when a plaintiff in fact knows or reasonably should know of the
wrong." The Court notes that WECCO was aware of the way in which
the Insurers were classifying the claims they paid on behalf of
WECCO since at least 2003 (with respect to the primary policies
issued to WECCO) and 2009 (with respect to U.S. Fire's umbrella
policies). Accordingly, the Court agrees with the district
court's conclusion that most of WECCO's breach-of-contract claims
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 28, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ydeohamv from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Bryan Michael Killian -- bryan.killian@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Harry Lee -- hlee@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Raskin -- jeffrey.raskin@morganlewis.com --
San Francisco, California, William B. Nes --
brad.nes@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Catherine Cockerham -- ccockerham@steptoe.com -- Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company. William P. Shelley -- wshelley@grsm.com
-- Jacob C. Cohn -- jcohn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee United
States Fire Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Liquid, et al., Wins Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Presently before the court in this asbestos-related personal
injury action are the motions for summary judgment of defendants
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, The Fairbanks Company,
CertainTeed Corporation, Foster Wheeler LLC, Union Carbide
Corporation, Aurora Pump Company, and Pfizer, Inc. Plaintiff Joan
Kister, individually, and as the Executor of the Estate of Alan
B. Kister, did not respond to these motions.

On October 28, 2016, Joan and Alan Kister originally filed this
personal injury action against multiple defendants, asserting
claims arising from Mr. Kister's alleged harmful exposure to
asbestos. On July 30, 2017, Mr. Kister died during the pendency
of this action. As a result, Mrs. Kister filed an amended
complaint on February 6, 2018, naming herself, individually, and
as the Executor of the Estate of Mr. Kister, as plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Kister developed mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his
employment as a pipe-coverer with Newport News Shipbuilding and
Dry Dock Co. from February to August 1968. Plaintiff contends
that Mr. Kister was injured due to exposure to asbestos-
containing products that Defendants manufactured, sold,
distributed, licensed, or installed. Accordingly, Plaintiff
asserts claims for negligence, willful and wanton conduct, strict
liability, loss of consortium, and wrongful death.

Mr. Kister was deposed on January 26, 2017. Plaintiff did not
produce any other fact or product identification witnesses for
deposition. In 1968, Mr. Kister was employed by Newport News and
worked at Newport News Shipyard. During this time, Mr. Kister
worked aboard the USS Mobile for seven months. While working as a
pipe-coverer aboard the Mobile, Mr. Kister performed work on
pumps housed in the Mobile's pump room. Mr. Kister testified that
there were many different pumps aboard the Mobile, but the three
manufacturers he recalled encountering were "Warren, Worthington,
and Ingersoll-Rand." Mr. Kister did not know of any other
products which may have exposed him to asbestos.

During his deposition, Mr. Kister did not identify any of the
Defendants' product. Because there is no genuine issue of
material fact in dispute as to whether Mr. Kister was exposed to
any asbestos-containing product of the Defendants, Judge Sherry
R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware recommends granting Defendants' motions for summary
judgment.

The Court explains that in order to defeat a motion for summary
judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show
that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."
The Court holds that mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; rather, there must be
enough evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find for the non-
moving party on the issue. Thus, if the non-movant fails to make
a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case on which
it bears the burden of proof, then the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

The case is In Re Asbestos Litigation. Joan Kister, Individually
and as Executor of the Estate of Alan B. Kister, deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Civ. No. 17-193-LPS-SRF, (D. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated April 4,
2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yalq6tu9 from
Leagle.com.

Joan Kister, Individually and as executor of the Estate of Alan
B. Kister, deceasaed, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick --
abalick@balick.com -- Balick & Balick, LLC, Bartholomew J. Dalton
-- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, P.A. &
Michael Collins Smith --  msmith@balick.com -- Balick & Balick,
LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-
owned subsidiary of of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation,
individucally and as successor in interest to Buffalo Pumps,
Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf & Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley --
PAB@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC &
Donald Robert Kinsley -- DRK@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley & Anderson LLC.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvanie
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as
successor in interest to The Bryant Electric Company, Defendant,
represented by Allison L. Texter -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com --
Swartz Campbell LLC, Beth E. Valocchi --
bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Jennifer
Ann Kapes -- jkapes@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Certainteed Corporation & General Electric Company, Defendants,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -
- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter -
- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E.
Valocchi -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Grinnell LLC & ITT Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Kelly A. Costello --
kelly.costello@morganlewis.com --  Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly --
ddaly@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf & Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph S.
Naylor -- jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marwill, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Pfizer, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly
-- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly
-- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-
owned subsidiary of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, individucally
and as successor in interest to Buffalo Pumps & The Fairbanks
Company, Cross Defendants, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf &
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul A.
Bradley -- PAB@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson
LLC.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvanie
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as
successor in interest to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi --
bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC, Jennifer Ann
Kapes -- jkapes@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC &
Allison L. Texter -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Certainteed Corporation & General Electric Company, Cross
Defendants, represented by Beth E. Valocchi --
bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC &
Allison L. Texter -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Grinnell LLC & ITT Corporation, Cross
Defendants, represented by Kelly A. Costello --
kelly.costello@morganlewis.com --  Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph
S. Naylor -- jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marwill, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

The Fairbanks Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf & Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler &
Buba.

Certainteed Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Joan Kister, Individually and as executor of the Estate of Alan
B. Kister, deceased, Cross Defendant, represented by Adam Balick
-- abalick@balick.com -- Balick & Balick, LLC, Bartholomew J.
Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates P.A.,
Ipek Kurul Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith --  msmith@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC.

Aurora Pump Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Paul A.
Bradley -- PAB@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson
LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marwill, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Refusal to Dismiss Eaton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin denies AIU Insurance Company's,
Granite State Insurance Company's, New Hampshire Insurance
Company's, and North River Insurance Company's motion for
reconsideration and/or certification of the order denying their
motion to dismiss.

In the case Eaton Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Westport Insurance
Company, AIU Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company,
New Hampshire Insurance Company, and North River Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 15-C-1157, (E.D. Wis.), Eaton
Corporation claims that five excess insurance companies must
defend and indemnify it in connection with personal-injury suits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by Eaton's
predecessor, Cutler-Hammer. In a separate suit pending in Ohio
state court, Eaton asserts different insurance-coverage claims
that arise out of asbestos suits that do not involve Cutler-
Hammer products. The claims in the Ohio action arise out of
Eaton's axle-brake products.

In a prior order, the Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by
four of the defendants to this case, AIU Insurance Company,
Granite State Insurance Company, New Hampshire Insurance Company,
and North River Insurance Company. The motion sought dismissal of
this action under the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine or,
alternatively, a dismissal based on forum non conveniens. The
four defendants argued that it was more convenient for all of
Eaton's asbestos-related insurance claims to proceed in the
action pending in Ohio state court.

In rejecting the four defendants' request, the Court noted that
abstention under Wilton/Brillhart doctrine is available only when
the claims in the suit are claims for declaratory relief. Because
Eaton had alleged claims for damages against a fifth defendant --
Westport Insurance Company -- the Court determined that it has no
discretion under Wilton/Brillhart to dismiss non-declaratory
claims, such as claims for damages, since those claims are
"independent" of the declaratory claims.

The four defendants now move for reconsideration of my decision
to deny abstention under Wilton/Brillhart, contending that the
Court misconstrued their motion as seeking dismissal of this
entire action, including Eaton's claims against Westport. In
fact, the four defendants now contend, their original motion
sought only dismissal of Eaton's claims against them. These
defendants contend that because Eaton seeks only declaratory
relief against them, the Court may abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over those claims, even though the Court have no
discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Eaton's
claims against Westport.

Just prior to the time that the four defendants filed their
motion for reconsideration, Eaton filed a motion to amend its
complaint to "clarify" that, in fact, it is seeking damages from
those defendants, just as it is seeking damages from Westport.
Moreover, Eaton points out that it has always sought injunctive
relief against the four defendants. Eaton argues that because it
seeks non-declaratory relief against all of the defendants, the
Court cannot abstain from exercising jurisdiction over any of its
claims under Wilton/Brillhart.

The four defendants oppose the motion to amend, contending that,
even though Eaton seeks forms of non-declaratory relief against
them, abstention under Wilton/Brillhart is not foreclosed because
Eaton's claims for non-declaratory relief are not "independent"
of the claims for declaratory relief.

Eaton contends that its first amended complaint already contains
claims for damages against these four defendants, and that the
second amended complaint merely makes the request for damages
explicit. The Court has considered this as a fair
characterization of the pleadings. Although Eaton's first amended
complaint demanded only declaratory and injunctive relief against
the defendants other than Westport, it alleged that those
defendants had breached the insurance policies they issued to
Eaton by failing to defend it in the underlying asbestos suits
and to indemnify it with respect to any judgments or settlements
in those suits. Moreover, Eaton's not including a demand for
damages against the four defendants in the first amended
complaint would not have prevented it from later seeking damages
in connection with its claim for breach of contract. The Court
determines that the proposed second amended complaint does not
alter the claims asserted against the four defendants, and
indeed, amending the complaint to find an explicit count for
breach of contract and an explicit demand for damages is likely
unnecessary. However, because Eaton has requested leave to amend,
and because granting leave will not prejudice the defendants, the
Court grants Eaton's motion for leave.

The four defendants contend that Eaton's claims for injunctive
relief and damages are "wholly dependent" on its claim for
declaratory relief, and that therefore the presence of such
claims does not prevent the Court from abstaining under
Wilton/Brillhart.

While the Court agrees with the four defendants that Eaton's
injunction and damages claims are dependent on the declaratory
claim because they will stand or fall together because Eaton
essentially asserts only a single claim for breach of contract
against each insurer, for which the various forms of relief --
damages, an injunction, and a declaratory judgment -- are merely
remedies. The Court maintains that it will have no discretion to
abstain under Wilton/Brillhart. The Court explains that if Eaton
fails to show that an insurer breached its insurance policy, then
Eaton will not be entitled to any relief against that insurer.

The Court further explains that non-declaratory claim is not
"dependent" on a declaratory claim whenever it is impossible to
win the non-declaratory claim without also winning the
declaratory claim, but rather, in this context, "dependence"
means that it is not possible to litigate the non-declaratory
claim in federal court without the declaratory claim's being part
of the case. Thus, the Court settles that even if it dismissed
Eaton's request for declaratory relief right now, Eaton's claims
for breach of contract, together with its requests for damages
and an injunction, could proceed. Accordingly, the defendants'
motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of their motion
to dismiss will be denied.

In their motion for reconsideration, make an alternative request
that the Court certify that the prior order denying their motion
to dismiss meets the standard for taking an interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The standard requires, among
other things, that the order involve a controlling question of
law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion. Since the Court finds no substantial ground for
difference of opinion as to whether it has discretion to abstain
under Wilton/Brillhart, therefore, the defendants' request for
certification under Section 1292(b) will also be denied.

Finally, as to Eaton's motion to compel discovery from the four
defendants, the Court will deny this motion as moot. Eaton served
requests for written discovery on these defendants more than a
year ago but then agreed that the defendants did not need to
respond until their motion to dismiss was decided. Now that the
Court has decided the motion for reconsideration, the Court
expects that the parties will confer and attempt to agree on
appropriate deadlines for the defendants to respond to the
written discovery.

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated April 4, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yamemzfu from Leagle.com.

Eaton Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Carmen N. Anderson -
- canderso@vonbriesen.com -- Von Briesen & Roper SC, Jessica M.
Reginato -- jreginato@vonbriesen.com -- Von Briesen & Roper SC,
John T. Waldron -- john.waldron@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP,
Matthew J. Louik -- Max.Louik@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Kay
M. Brady -- kay.brady@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Kelly J.
Noyes -- knoyes@vonbriesen.com -- Von Briesen & Roper SC.

Westport Insurance Corporation, formerly known as Puritan
Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin A. Blume --
benjamin.blume@kennedyscmk.com -- Kennedys CMK LLP, Bevin Carroll
-- bevin.carroll@kennedyscmk.com -- Kennedys CMK LLP & Nicole J.
Kelly -- nicole.kelly@kennedyscmk.com -- Kennedys CMK LLP.

AIU Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, New
Hampshire Insurance Company & North River Insurance Company,
Defendants, represented by Laura S. McKay -- lmckay@hww-law.com -
- Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP & Seth M. Jaffe -- sjaffe@hww-
law.com -- Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Hartford Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the summary judgment in favor of First State Insurance Company,
Twin City Fire Insurance Company, New England Reinsurance
Corporation, and Nutmeg Insurance Company (collectively,
"Hartford"), and the denial of The City of Phoenix's motion for
partial summary judgment.

The City's insurance coverage action against Hartford arose from
an underlying personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit brought
by Carlos Tarazon and his wife. Mr. Tarazon was exposed to
asbestos through his work as an underground pipe layer in the
City from 1968 to 1993 and died of mesothelioma in 2014. The City
settled the Tarazon family's claims against it for $500,000. The
City's legal defense expenses amounted to over $1,400,000.

From July 1, 1981 to July 1, 1985, the City was covered by four
successive excessive liability policies issued by Hartford, each
of which provided $500,000 in liability coverage in excess of a
$500,000 self-insured retention ("SIR"). The City also purchased
three successive umbrella policies from Hartford, covering
periods from July 1, 1981 to July 1, 1984.

The Excess Policies' basic insuring agreement states that
Hartford will indemnify the City for ultimate net loss in excess
of the retained limit of $500,000. Ultimate net loss is defined
in the Excess Policies to "exclude all loss adjustment expenses.
The parties agree that defense costs are "loss adjustment
expenses." The Court finds the plain language of this provision
unambiguous, which should be construed in a manner according to
their plain and ordinary meaning. Hartford only has to indemnify
the City if the City's ultimate net loss (i.e., not including
defense costs) exceeds $500,000. The City settled its claim for
$500,000 and is not entitled to indemnity.

The Excess Policies also contain a "No Costs" provision, which
states: Should any claim arising from such occurrence be adjusted
prior to trial court judgment for a total amount not more than
the retained limit, then no loss expenses or legal expenses will
be payable by the Company(s). The City attempts to inject
ambiguity into the No Costs provision by arguing that use of the
term "adjusted" includes both liability and defense costs, and
defense costs therefore erode the SIR. However, this reading
would contradict the language from the basic insuring agreement,
which clearly provides that Hartford's duty to indemnify applies
when the retained limit is exhausted by liability costs.

Again, because the City settled its claim within the retained
limit, the plain language of the policy precludes it from
receiving defense costs from Hartford.

The City argues in the alternative that if Hartford is not
obligated to pay the City under the Excess Policies, Hartford
must pay under the Umbrella Policies. The Umbrella Policies
provide that Hartford will indemnify the City for ultimate net
loss in excess of the underlying limit or the SIR, whichever is
the greater. The Umbrella Policies define "underlying limit" as
the "limits of liability of the underlying insurance." Each
Umbrella Policy's Schedule of Underlying Policies lists an Excess
Policy and states that the Excess Policy's limit of liability is
$500,000 in excess of the $500,000 SIR. Where no underlying
insurance applies, the Umbrella Policies have a separate SIR of
$10,000 or $25,000, depending on the policy year.

Because the City's asbestos liability fell within the scope of
the Excess Policies, the Court sustains that the City is only
entitled to "ultimate net loss in excess of the underlying
limit." As the City did not exhaust the underlying limit of the
Excess Policies, it is not entitled to indemnity under the
Umbrella Policies. Moreover, the City's argument that it is
entitled to defense costs under the Umbrella Policies fails for
the same reason it is not entitled to defense costs under the
Excess Policies.

Moreover, because the Court finds that Hartford was justified in
refusing to indemnify the City, the Court declines to review the
City's bad faith claim.

The appealed case is City of Phoenix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
First State Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-16767, (9th Cir.)

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 4, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jxjue8 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Burkart" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remands the case styled Raymond
Burkart, Jr. v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al., Section: "J"(1),
Civil Action No. 17-12646, (E.D. La.) to the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans.

In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff, Raymond Burkart, Jr., alleges
that he contracted mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to
asbestos-containing products during his employment at Defendant,
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc.).
The parties agree that Plaintiff's alleged asbestos exposure
relates, at least in part, to asbestos-containing materials being
installed aboard ships being built for the United States Navy.

Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Avondale in state court
seeking damages for Avondale's alleged failure to warn of the
hazards of asbestos and failure to implement proper safety
procedures for the handling of asbestos. Avondale subsequently
removed the action to this Court, asserting federal jurisdiction
the federal officer removal statute. Avondale contends that the
Court has federal officer jurisdiction over the dispute because
its use and installation of asbestos-containing materials in the
construction of federal vessels was required by the contractual
provisions and design specifications mandated by the federal
government.

Plaintiff argues that Avondale has not carried its burden of
establishing the elements of federal officer jurisdiction --
specifically, that a casual nexus exists between Plaintiff's
claims and Avondale's acts under the color of federal office.
Plaintiff argues that his claims for failure to warn and failure
to safeguard have nothing to do with Avondale's compliance with
federal requirements because asbestos-related safety measures at
Avondale were never under federal direction and control. Thus,
Plaintiff avers that Avondale cannot make a showing of a casual
nexus between a federal officer's direct and detailed control
over Avondale's safety activities and Avondale's ability to
comply with its obligation to warn and/or safeguard under state
law.

In contrast, Avondale argues that the federal government's
mandate that it use asbestos-containing material is sufficient to
establish the casual nexus prong of the federal officer removal
statue as amended. In particular, Avondale asserts that Plaintiff
relies on a casual nexus standard that was rendered obsolete when
Congress amended the federal officer removal statute in 2011.
Avondale argues that under the amendment, the removing party need
only show that there is some connection or association between
the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's conduct under color of
federal office.1 Thus, Avondale maintains that its removal of
this suit is proper because Plaintiff's negligence claims "relate
to" the government's mandate that Avondale use asbestos-
containing products in its ships.

The Court has recently rejected identical arguments made by
Avondale regarding the casual nexus requirement in Guillot v.
Avondale Indus., Inc., No. 17-7666 (E.D. La. April 9, 2018).
There, the Court found that Avondale failed to show that a casual
nexus existed between the federal government's requirement that
Avondale use asbestos-containing materials and Avondale's ability
to comply with its obligations to warn and/or safeguard under
state law. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Guillot, the
Court remands this case to the state court.

A full-text copy of the Order dated April 11, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yb6jacmj from Leagle.com.

Raymond V. Burkart, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Cameron
Waddell, Waddell Anderman LLC & Jody Edward Anderman, Waddell
Anderman LLC.

PPG Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Ryan Thomas Martin, Manion Gaynor
Manning LLP.

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kay
Barnes Baxter -- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Forrest Ren
Wilkes -- ren@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Georgia Noble Ainsworth --  georgia@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons
& Brown, PLLC, Jason K. Elam -- jason.elam@cs-law.com -- Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr. -- jimmy@cs-law.com --
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Anco Insulations Inc, Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert
Baglio -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Donna M.
Young -- dyoung@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Douglas R.
Elliott -- delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC & Margaret
M. Joffe -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Eagle, Inc. & McCarty Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Susan Beth Kohn -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar -- aprilm@spsr-law.com --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler --
douglask@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
Douglas Watson Redfearn -- douglasr@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta --
janicec@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP,
Louis Oliver Oubre -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Jacobs Constructors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur H.
Leith -- aleith@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, C.
Kieffer Petree -- cpetree@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford,
PLLC, Dan Edward West -- dwest@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC & Sarah Elizabeth McMillan --
gmacmillan@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore -- bmoore@courington-
law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew
Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Mathilde Villere Semmes -- msemmes@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., formerly known as Avondale
Industries, Inc., formerly known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III --
gfritchie@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alex Tyler Robertson -- arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alison A. Spindler --
aspindler@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
David Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye
N. Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore -- bmoore@courington-
law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew
Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes -- msemmes@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell --
tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
& Adam Devlin DeMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Reilly-Benton Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill -- TCougill@FulCoLaw.com -- Willingham Fultz & Cougill,
LLP, Jamie M. Zanovec -- JZanovec@FulCoLaw.com --  Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill, LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill,
LLP.

Hercules, LLC, Incorrectly named as Hercules, Inc., Champlain
Cable Corporation & Ametek, Inc., Third Party Defendants,
represented by Christopher O. Massenburg --
cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Bradley Adam
Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Gauthier Murphy Houghtaling LLC, Meghan B.
Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Ryan
Thomas Martin, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alison A. Spindler -- aspindler@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David Michael Melancon --
dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Edward Winter Trapolin -- etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Timothy Farrow Daniels --
tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, formerly known as Duriron Company, Inc.,
Third Party Defendant, represented by Glenn L.M. Swetman --
mswetman@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Bradley Adam
Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Brandie
Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com --Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP, Christopher O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com
-- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Danielle Mikel Sczesny --
dsczesny@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, David R. Frohn
-- dfrohn@mgmlaw.com -- MGM Law Firm, Helen Meredith Buckley --
hbuckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Kevin R. Sloan -- kevin@gmhatlaw.com -- Gauthier Murphy
Houghtaling LLC, Meghan B. Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP, Natasha Amber Corb -- ncorb@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Quinn Kelcie Brown --
qbrown@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Ryan Thomas
Martin, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP.

Crane Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Lawrence G.
Pugh, III  -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Donna M.
Young -- dyoung@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Jacqueline
Romero -- jromero@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC & Shelley L.
Thompson -- sthompson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves
Arthur -- mimi.arthur@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP & Amy Louise Maccherone --
amy.maccherone@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Third Party Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann
McCulloch -- lauren.mcculloch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr. --
elassus@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. -- jgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom, Inc., formerly known
as Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin & General Electric Company,
Third Party Defendants, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III -
- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin --
abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Barry C. Campbell --
bcampbell@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr. --
jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long --
klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan --
keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy --
lmccoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin --
mpuente@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented
by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S.
Roberts -- daniel.roberts@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn --
elizabeth.penn@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP,
Mary Reeves Arthur -- mimi.arthur@formanwatkins.com -- Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith --
peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., doing business as O-I, Third Party
Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins
& Krutz LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn --
elizabeth.penn@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP,
Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton
Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by
McGready Lewis Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III --
fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
Kathleen Erin Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey & Milele N. St. Julien -- mstjulien@pugh-
law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Warren-Rupp, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Jeffrey Matthew Burg -- jburg@courington-
law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alison A. Spindler -- aspindler@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David Michael Melancon --
dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Edward Winter Trapolin -- etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Timothy Farrow Daniels --
tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Ameron International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kay Barnes Baxter -- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Forrest
Ren Wilkes -- ren@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Georgia Noble Ainsworth --  georgia@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons
& Brown, PLLC, Jason K. Elam -- jason.elam@cs-law.com -- Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr. -- jimmy@cs-law.com --
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Anco Insulations Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by by Jamie
Hebert Baglio -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC,
Donna M. Young --  dyoung@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC,
Douglas R. Elliott -- delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC
& Margaret M. Joffe -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Eagle, Inc. & McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendants, represented
by Susan Beth Kohn -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar -- aprilm@spsr-law.com --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler --
douglask@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
Douglas Watson Redfearn -- douglasr@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta --
janicec@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP,
Louis Oliver Oubre -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore -- bmoore@courington-
law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew
Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Mathilde Villere Semmes -- msemmes@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kaye N. Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes --
msemmes@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Troy Nathan Bell -- tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

PPG Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher
O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Ryan Thomas Martin, Manion Gaynor
Manning LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses "Young" Asbestos PI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, pursuant to Plaintiffs'
Request for Dismissal, dismissed without prejudice the entire
case styled as Dolly Young, Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Lonnie Young, Deceased; DeAndre B. Young; Derrick W.
Young; DeAdera L. Young-Dunn, Plaintiffs, v. Asbestos
Corporation, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-09114-
DDP-PLA, (C.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated April 12, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycwmn74v from Leagle.com.

Dolly Young, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Lonnie
Young, deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Diran Hovsep Tashjian,
Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP, Stephen M. Fishback --
sfishback@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP, Daniel
L. Keller -- dkeller@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback and Jackson
LLP & Richard E. Stultz, Morris Polich and Purdy LLP.

DeAndre B Young, Derrick W Young & DeAdera L Young-Dunn,
Plaintiffs, represented by Diran Hovsep Tashjian, Keller Fishback
and Jackson LLP, Stephen M. Fishback -- sfishback@kfjlegal.com --
Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP & Richard E. Stultz, Morris
Polich and Purdy LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Davis --
Geoffrey.Davis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Flowserve Corporation, individually and as successor in interest
to Durametallic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles
George Manoli, Jr., Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary D. Sharp --
gsharp@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Nicole
Brown Yuen -- nyuen@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield
PLLP.

FMC Corporation, formerly known as Peerless Pump, formerly known
as Northern Pump, formerly known as Chicago Pump & Sterling Fluid
Systems USA LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Peerliess Pump Company and Indian Head, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Gavin D. Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin D. Jamison,
Pond North LLP & Natalie Garcia Lashinsky, Pond North LLP.

Frasers Boiler Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
B. Friend, Pond North LLP, Kevin D. Jamison, Pond North LLP,
Natalie Garcia Lashinsky, Pond North LLP, Previn A. Wick, Pond
North LLP & Sandra L. Gryder -- sgryder@pondnorth.com -- Pond
North LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WUPHD Issues Asbestos Warning
----------------------------------------------
The Daily Mining Gazette reported that the Western Upper
Peninsula Health Department has issued a warning for people to
avoid activity along a 1,000 foot section of M-26 near the C&H
Mineral Building in Hubbell.

The building, owned by Silver Shore Enterprise, Inc., is located
at 52986 M-26 on the north side of Hubbell, between M-26 and
Torch Lake. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
conducted a public health evaluation of hazards at the location
as part of ongoing abandoned mining waste projects in the area.

Roofing material falling from the building has been found on both
sides of M-26, presenting a physical hazard to the public.

"Recent sampling of this material has confirmed the presence of
asbestos fibers," said Kate Beer, WUPHD health officer. "These
fibers can become airborne as the roofing material degrades or is
damaged by passing vehicles and during routine maintenance of the
roadway. Exposure to these airborne fibers should be avoided as,
over time, they can cause damage to the lungs and increase the
risk of developing cancer."

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality removed and
disposed of 14 tons of this material in 2016 and 2017, and the
property owner will be responsible for ongoing clean-up of
falling debris. The potential for public exposure to asbestos
fibers will continue until the building is repaired or
demolished.

The public is asked to avoid activities in this section of the
highway, including walking and biking, and to be cautious of
possible debris in the roadway while driving. All public access
to the C&H Mineral Building property should be avoided.

The health department is working with the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and
other stakeholders to reach a long-term solution to this issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCTV Capture Truck Dumping Asbestos in Driveway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Lu of ABC Online reported that Fire and Rescue services
were called to an Oatlands home after a resident reported rubbish
bags had been dumped by a truck onto their driveway.

CCTV footage of the incident shows a dump truck make several
attempts to reverse into the driveway before dumping the entire
contents of the truck's load.

Moments later, two children can be seen rushing out to the
driveway before returning to the home.

Firefighters suspect the bags contained asbestos material.
Wearing protective suits, they inspected the bags and wet them
down before decontaminating the area.

NSW Fire and Rescue Superintendent Adam Dewberry said that
although the material had not yet been confirmed as asbestos,
authorities were treating it as "a worst-case scenario".

"Asbestos is a very dangerous product, there is a lot of it in
the community and if it's not used appropriately it can be very
dangerous to the community [and] that's why Fire and Rescue does
treat these matters very seriously," he said.

"Even though we are not too sure if this is asbestos we have
treated it as asbestos to contain it and render it safe so the
occupants can safely remove it at a later date."

One resident of the house in question said he was "not worried at
all, as things happen".

A neighbour, Joel Jammal, said he heard trucks go past the house
about 9:00pm and heard some noise later on, but thought it was
the children next door.

"We saw this big pile in front of the neighbours house, I was
like, I don't remember seeing that yesterday."

He said he was not too concerned about the suspected asbestos,
now that it has been contained by authorities.

The ABC understands the residents involved have been
uncooperative with police.

A large truck arrived at the property about midday to remove the
rubbish.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Architect Dies from Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rieger of CBC reported that an architect who designed some
of the most iconic buildings in Calgary and southern Alberta has
died at 74 from asbestos exposure he incurred during the early
years of his career.

Ken Hutchinson designed hundreds of buildings in Western Canada,
including the Saamis Teepee in Medicine Hat and the Hobbema
Healing Lodge (PeSakastew Centre) in Maskwacis, which is built in
the shape of a medicine wheel, as well as numerous other
recreation centres, libraries, fire halls, theatres and schools
in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan.

Other notable buildings he designed include the Engineered Air
Theatre at Arts Commons in Calgary, the Calgary Real Estate
Board, the Museum of the Regiments, and Fort Saskatchewan's DOW
Centennial Centre.

He was also involved in renovating Calgary's Old City Hall, the
McDougall Centre and Memorial Park Library.

Hutchinson was born in Red Deer and raised in Edmonton. His
family said he chose to become an architect after helping his
grandfather build a house as a child.

He was inducted into the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada
in 2010, and there's an architectural scholarship in the name of
Hutchinson and his wife at Athabasca University.

Hutchinson won dozens of awards over his long career, heading up
his own architecture firm for more than 35 years.

In his spare time, Hutchinson loved volunteering with the the
Calgary and Cochrane Rotary clubs, painting, sailing and vintage
cars, his family said in a release.

"Ken will be remembered not only for his exceptional professional
contributions that have impacted so many lives, but also his
unending sense of humour and 'glass-half-full' outlook on life,"
the release read.

He is survived by his wife, Janny, two children, Keesa and Kodi,
and three grandchildren. The couple was married for more than 40
years.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Compares Different Asbestos Exposures
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss of Surviving Mesothelioma reported that a new
Turkish study is shining a spotlight on the role of environmental
asbestos exposure in the development of malignant mesothelioma,
an aggressive malignancy with no known cure.

Malignant mesothelioma, which occurs on the membranes around the
lungs, the abdominal organs or, more rarely, the heart, is most
often associated with occupational asbestos exposure.

But a new study in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational
Healthcautions that "Environmental asbestos exposure is as
important as occupational exposure to develop malignant
mesothelioma."

In addition, after studying 21 groups of Turkish mesothelioma
patients with either environmental or occupational exposure, the
researchers concluded that environmental exposure is different
from occupational exposure in some notable ways.

Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma Diagnosis

Doctors have known since as early as the 1930s of the possible
connection between the mineral asbestos and a previously-unknown
type of lung cancer.

The fact that the incidence of mesothelioma was (and remains)
low, made it difficult to study. It was not until the 1960s that
it became clear that asbestos exposure was the primary cause of
mesothelioma and some companies began to taper off their use of
asbestos-containing materials.

From the very first study on mesothelioma and asbestos, published
in the British Journal of Medicine in 1960, researchers
acknowledged that both occupational and environmental exposure to
asbestos could be deadly.

Other studies followed, showing that people who either worked or
lived around asbestos or products that contained it, were more
likely than the general public to die of malignant mesothelioma.
This is because when they are inhaled or swallowed, asbestos
fibers get trapped in the tissues, triggering inflammation and
irritation that can lead to a mesothelioma diagnosis even decades
later.

Occupational vs Environmental Asbestos and Mesothelioma Risk
In the newest study on asbestos exposure and mesothelioma
incidence, researchers with Turkey's Eskisehir Osmangazi
University examined 21 groups or "cohorts" of asbestos-exposed
mesothelioma patients.

Eight of the groups included patients whose only known exposure
to asbestos or a similar mineral called erionite was
environmental. Erionite is especially common in some areas in
Turkey and many homes in these regions have been constructed with
rocks that contain it, putting both the builders and the
occupants of these homes at risk for mesothelioma.

The remaining 13 groups of mesothelioma patients analyzed for the
new study included patients whose only known exposure to mineral
fibers was in their work.

Results of the Mesothelioma Study

Although exposure to asbestos or erionite was clearly implicated
in the illnesses of all of the study participants, the
researchers discovered that how and where one was exposed could
play a role in the development and progression of their
mesothelioma.

Among the environmentally-exposed mesothelioma patients,
incidence was higher in women. In contrast, groups of patients
exposed at work tended to contain more men.

Among the environmentally-exposed mesothelioma patients, the rate
of mesothelioma increased as the median exposure time increased,
but the incidence of mesothelioma appeared to decrease as median
cumulative exposure dose increased.

In the work-exposed groups, the opposite was true--the rate of
malignant mesothelioma went up as their median cumulative
exposure to asbestos increased. The findings prompted the
researchers to conclude that environmental exposure "has its own
unique features on the risk of malignant mesothelioma."

In the US, environmental exposure to asbestos may include things
like living near a decommissioned asbestos mine, laundering the
clothes or equipment of someone who worked around asbestos,
hiking in an area where asbestos occurs naturally, or living in a
home with disintegrating asbestos insulation.

Sources:
Metintas, S, "A review of the cohorts with environmental and
occupational mineral fiber exposure", April 2018, Archives of
Environmental Occupational Health, Epub ahead of print.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Docker Blames Self for Wife's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Small of Mirror.co.uk reported that a retired docker has
opened up on his bitter guilt, after his wife died from a cancer
caused by washing his asbestos-ridden overalls.

Leonard Faram feels like he "murdered" devoted Annette and fears
their children might develop mesothelioma too after inhaling the
deadly dust he brought home from work.

Leonard, 81, spent around 10 years moving asbestos fibres from
ships along the Thames to the Cape Asbestos factory in Barking,
Essex, in the 1960s.

The factory workers were given protective clothing and masks but
Leonard says his boss dismissed his repeated requests for dock
workers to have protective gear too.

"Even back then people knew asbestos dust was a killer," he said.
"Our employers said it wouldn't hurt us because we were working
in the open air."

A retired docker has opened up on his bitter guilt, after his
wife died from a cancer caused by washing his asbestos-ridden
overalls.
Leonard Faram feels like he "murdered" devoted Annette and fears
their children might develop mesothelioma too after inhaling the
deadly dust he brought home from work.

Leonard, 81, spent around 10 years moving asbestos fibres from
ships along the Thames to the Cape Asbestos factory in Barking,
Essex, in the 1960s.

The factory workers were given protective clothing and masks but
Leonard says his boss dismissed his repeated requests for dock
workers to have protective gear too.

"Even back then people knew asbestos dust was a killer," he said.
"Our employers said it wouldn't hurt us because we were working
in the open air."

"People tell me I shouldn't feel guilty but I do. I feel like it
was me that killed my wife because it was me that brought that
disease home.

"It should have been me that died, not my Annette. It hurts me so
much to talk about it. In my mind I feel like I'm a murderer."
Annette, a retired secretary, died three days after her 79th
birthday in January 2015.

She is one of 8,054 women who have died from mesothelioma in
Britain between 1981 and 2015, along with over 45,527 men.
Leonard said: "She had been a really fit person. But then
suddenly she started getting short of breath.

"Eventually we ended up in A&E. I mentioned I'd worked with
asbestos.

"They sent her for urgent investigations and found the asbestos
cancer growing in her lungs. The doctor sat us both down and told
us it was terminal. I felt like I'd been shot down in flames."
Before she died, Annette won a six-figure compensation payout
from the government on behalf of the now defunct National Dock
Labour Board.

Leonard, who was awarded an MBE in 2000 for charity work, said:
"To me it's blood money. I don't want it. I've passed it on to
the children.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Railway Phasing Out Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------
Manoj R. Nair of Hindustan Times reported that in June 2009, the
journalist had reported that the broken-down asbestos roof of a
pedestrian bridge in a railway station in Mumbai was being
replaced by metal sheets.

The report from an obscure suburban station would have been
insignificant but for the fact that asbestos sheet, which is
manufactured from a naturally occurring fibrous mineral, has been
an important construction material for India's railways. Most
railway stations in India -- there are nearly 8000 -- have
asbestos in their premises. The sheets are made by bonding
asbestos fibres with cement. The product is used as roofing and
partition material for stations, workshops and worker's quarters.
It is also used as insulation material in places with extreme
weather.

But studies have shown that asbestos fibre can be dangerous. The
American federal public health body, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Diseases Registry (ATSDR), says that the fibre, if
inhaled for a long period of time, can cause asbestosis, or
scarring of lungs. The material can also cause pleural diseases,
where there is a change in the lining of the lungs. In some
cases, inhalation of the fibre can cause cancer. ARSDR says that
not everyone who comes in contact with the material develops
health problems and that it is people with other preconditions
who are more vulnerable.

The plan to replace asbestos at railway stations with metal,
which was started a decade ago, is now a major project. Recently,
the railways announced that all new railway stations will have
metal sheet roofs. Asbestos roofs at older stations will be
phased out. "Metal sheets look appealing as they are pre-painted.
They do not break; they only bend on impact while asbestos has to
be painted after it is installed, and it can break," a railway
engineer had told this reporter.

Asbestos manufactures say that the alarm over asbestos is
unwarranted, as only some products made from the material are
dangerous to health. The Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers
Association (ACPMA) says that groups campaigning for the phasing
out of asbestos are often supported by manufacturers of iron
material who will benefit if mining and manufacturing of asbestos
is banned. During the hearing of a writ petition asking for
restrictions on manufacture and sale of asbestos product, the
ACPMA had blamed ductile cast iron producers of supporting
litigation aimed at asbestos makers.

"Actually, as far as we are concerned, health-wise there no
problem in the manufacture, sale and distribution of what you
call asbestos in India," said G Vivekanand, chairman, ACPMA.

An asbestos manufacturer told this reporter that asbestos as a
raw material is harmful. "So, precautions have to be taken during
manufacturing and packing. But in roofing sheets, asbestos fibre
is bonded with cement and cannot escape into the air," said the
representative of a firm.

According to Vivekanand, the concentration of asbestos fibre in
Indian products is low -- as little as eight percent. "It is
certain types of fibres, used as insulation material, which are
problematic. The fibre is a naturally occurring substance and our
products are made scientifically and are safe," said Vivekanand.
"The railways may decide to use other materials for aesthetic
purposes; it is their outlook, but asbestos sheets are longer
lasting than metal, which will last only a few years."

ACPMA says that the railway's decision to reduce asbestos use
does not affect them much. "Right now we are not in government
construction. We are able to sell the material outside," said
Vivekanand.

But groups like Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), a group
creating awareness about the possible hazards of asbestos, have
been campaigning against the use of asbestos. The group said that
health concerns about the material have prompted countries to ban
the manufacture.

Disposal of the asbestos retrieved from railway will be a tough
task as the material is used widely. Asbestos products that are
breaking down can release the fibres in to the air. According to
BANI, there is probably no public building in India that does not
use the material. The railways have said that they will be using
'scientific' landfilling methods to dispose of the asbestos
waste.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Johns Island Sealed Off After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Times reported that debris containing a potentially
toxic compound was recently found on St John's Island, leading
the authorities to seal off more than half of the island as a
safety precaution.

Traces of asbestos had been detected on April 16 in construction
debris such as roof tiles around the island's campsite, lagoon
and holiday bungalow area, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA)
announced at a media briefing.

Even though the risk of visitors developing asbestos-related
diseases is low due to short-term exposure to the mineral, SLA
said it took the precaution of cordoning off the affected areas
the following day (April 17). SLA, which manages the island, also
closed off the campsite and cancelled about a dozen bookings for
the holiday bungalow.

The two long-term residents on St John's Island, whose homes fall
within the affected areas, also moved back to the mainland on
April 18. SLA said they were found to be in good health.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was once a popular component
in construction materials. Due to its links to health problems
such as lung cancer, its use in buildings was banned in Singapore
in 1989, but many earlier structures still contain the substance.

Structures containing asbestos pose no risk to humans if they are
intact. However, when there is damage or disturbance -- such as
sawing and cutting -- fibres may be released into the air and
inhaled. In this case, the asbestos was found in construction
debris such as roof tiles. SLA is investigating how the debris
came to the island.

Asbestos-related diseases such as lung cancer or asbestocis, the
progressive scarring of the lungs, occur mainly in people who
have continuous years of exposure to high levels of asbestos,
said Associate Professor Loo Chian Min, senior consultant for
respiratory and critical care medicine at the Singapore General
Hospital.

He said that casual visitors to St John's Island should not be
unduly worried.

However, for the two long-term islanders, Prof Loo said: "I would
advise them to go for a baseline health check. For asbestos to
cause any illness, they would need 10 to 40 years before anything
can happen.So a baseline would help to ascertain their health
condition now, so there can be a comparison if anything should
happen later."

During the briefing, SLA said the affected areas will likely re-
open only in mid-2019, after asbestos removal and other
construction works are completed.

But visitors can still make the trip to the neighbouring Lazarus
Island, which is connected to St John's Island by a bridge.
Even though official figures show that at least 200 asbestos-
removal cases take place every year, the asbestos on St John's
Island is only the second prominent case.

The first was in 2016, when SLA found that the corrugated roof
sheets of terraced houses in Chip Bee Gardens had asbestos in
some of them.

SLA chief executive Tan Boon Khai said replacement works at Chip
Bee are still ongoing.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Found in Wamberal Beaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Telegraph reported that nobody knows what hazardous
material could be buried at Wamberal Beach, according to Central
Coast Council acting chief executive officer Brian Glendenning.

"What has become buried at the beach over the years isn't known,"
he said at last night's council meeting.

"When you look at the dune face there's all sorts of materials in
there, even a car and boat trailer. It is something that requires
careful and extensive study because we don't know the full extent
of it nor do we know the best way to mitigate that risk. We do
need a more permanent long term plan to manage this risk."

Councillor Jilly Pilon called for the council to prepare an
urgent management plan following the recent discovery of asbestos
materials on Terrigal and Wamberal beaches, saying the issue is a
"safety risk to the public."

Asbestos was discovered between the rock pool and lagoon at
Terrigal beach.

Local residents Petra and Anthony Horwood collected 30 pieces of
suspected asbestos from the popular beach.

"We noticed an odd shaped light grey piece of corrugated fibro
material sticking out of the sand," Mrs Horwood said.

"Fearing the worst we turned it over using a shell and realised
that the dappled fibrous, rough-edged material looked very much
like fibro containing asbestos."

The Horwood's reported the matter to Robertson federal Liberal MP
Lucy Wicks, who was on surf lifesaving patrol at Terrigal, and
the matter was immediately referred to the council which sent
officers to remove the items.

Asbestos asbestos containing material was found on Wamberal beach
with the council and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
attending on two occasions.

Council will prepare a management plan on the asbestos issue at
Wamberal and Terrigal and report back to the next meeting in May.
Mr Glendenning said a minimum of bi-weekly inspections will be
carried out while further investigations take place.

"The difficulty is we don't have any insight into what might have
caused that material to be at Terrigal Beach but the issue at
Wamberal has a long history," he said.

Mr Glendenning said the council was unsure how certain materials
came to be buried at Wamberal beach.

"There's no evidence that the former Gosford Council gave their
consent," he said.

"There were major storm events in the 70s where houses were
washed away on the beach and that's where the ruins is located."

Cr Pilon said seven properties had been sectioned off at Wamberal
beach due to the issue.

"This is issue has been going on since the storms back in 2016,"
she said.

"It's a high concern that we have asbestos buried in an erosion
zone less than 50cm under the sand and I can't understand why
that w asn't dealt with at the time."

She also passed a motion for the council to release Wamberal
Beach NSW Storm Erosion Remediation Report.

Mrs Wicks has requested an urgent briefing from the council on
the issue.

"My concern is that with so many children and families at
Terrigal Beach, and given that it is currently school holidays,
it becomes all the more important that this issue is properly
investigated and monitored," she said.

Council urged residents to report any material potentially
containing asbestos to contact the EPA or council straight away
and not remove the material themselves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers, Students At Risk of Asbestos in School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Wight of Personnel Today reported that the Joint Union
Asbestos Committee (JUAC), which seeks to make all schools and
colleges free from asbestos, claimed that almost 90% of schools
contain the substance, with around 17 teaching staff dying from
mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos exposure -- every
year.

Freedom of Information requests sent to multi-academy trusts by
JUAC revealed that asbestos was present in 1,863 academies.

The academies said there had been 54 reported incidents of
asbestos exposure in total, often because unexpected asbestos had
been uncovered. Incidents included finding asbestos in the
ceiling of an IT suite, discovering asbestos under the carpet in
a classroom and finding asbestos when repairing a pipe in a
library.

Despite more than 50 reported exposures, only five multi-academy
trusts admitted they had received an improvement or prohibition
notice by the Health and Safety Executive, JUAC claimed.

Some trusts did not have a legally-required asbestos management
plan and many admitted they had not audited their management plan
on an annual basis.

JUAC chair John McClean called on the Government to compile a
central database of the location and condition of all asbestos in
schools.

"This information confirms that the Government's policy of
managing asbestos in schools has failed. There is absolutely no
uniformity in how multi-academy trusts are managing their
asbestos, and no standardised procedures followed when schools
transfer to academy trusts," he said.

JUAC has called on the Government to tackle asbestos in schools
in a number of ways, including a programme of phased removal of
the substance from all schools and the creation of a central
database of asbestos in education establishments.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, who is chair of the Asbestos in Schools
Group, said school staff and children were being put at risk:
"The Government needs to come up with a clear strategy to ensure
any potential exposure to asbestos is minimised and that staff
and pupils are kept safe. Parents and teachers have been left in
the dark for too long about the extent of the problem."

The Treasury should increase the funding available to tackle the
problem, according to Unite general secretary Len McCluskey.

"It is not for nothing that asbestos has been known as 'the
silent killer' for decades and these latest findings make
shocking reading.

"In 2018, the life of no teacher, pupil or support staff should
be under threat from this insidious and malignant presence,"
McCluskey said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Cathedral Clean-Up
--------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Harris of The Press reported that asbestos has been
discovered in the land fenced off around Christ Church Cathedral,
complicating a clean up of the area ahead of Anzac Day.

Despite the contamination members of Christchurch's Returned and
Services Association will still be able to lay wreaths at the
citizens' war memorial.

Health chiefs said there was minimal risk to people visiting the
area because of the low levels of asbestos found and it not being
disturbed.

It is not clear if asbestos contaminates the wider cathedral
site.

Gavin Holley, general manager of the Church Property Trustees
(CPT), which owns the land around the cathedral, said CPT had
intended to clean up the area close to the war memorial to allow
easier access for RSA members to pay their respects and lay a
wreath.

"Unfortunately, recent soil sampling at the cathedral has shown
traces of asbestos. The traces appear to be in the hard fill that
was delivered to the site in 2012 to cover the paving stones
after the earthquakes.

"The hardfill was placed over the stones to protect them from
heavy machinery during deconstruction and stabilisation work."

The area where wreaths are being laid will now be covered to
ensure there is no disturbance to the soil.

But CPT bosses were adamant a cleanup of the area was progressing
well.

CPT recovery programme manager Suzanne Price said the find made
the wider cleanup of the site "more complicated" than previously
thought.

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Minister Megan Woods met
Anglican church leaders to call for a cleanup to be carried out
"as soon as possible".

In recent days, it has emerged a city council heritage assessment
reportedly proposed a move for the memorial from its current
location to Latimer Square, despite the RSA's desire for it to
have a home in Cranmer Square.




                            *********


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  * * *